bigtop-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Leidle, Rob" <lei...@amazon.com>
Subject Re: possible bug in puppet installation?
Date Fri, 28 Nov 2014 20:06:21 GMT
++dev@bigtop.apache.org

From: <Leidle>, "Leidle, Rob" <leidle@amazon.com<mailto:leidle@amazon.com>>
Reply-To: "user@bigtop.apache.org<mailto:user@bigtop.apache.org>" <user@bigtop.apache.org<mailto:user@bigtop.apache.org>>
Date: Friday, November 28, 2014 at 11:40 AM
To: "user@bigtop.apache.org<mailto:user@bigtop.apache.org>" <user@bigtop.apache.org<mailto:user@bigtop.apache.org>>
Subject: possible bug in puppet installation?

I am running into an issue with the puppet installation, and I think it is a bug (although
I don’t want to submit a patch for it until I make sure I understand the issue completely).
When I do not specify a secondary name node I am seeing both the namenode and the secondary
name node being installed and configured. The bug, I believe, is in the cluster.pp file:

https://github.com/apache/bigtop/blob/master/bigtop-deploy/puppet/manifests/cluster.pp

On line 224 the logic for secondary namenode is present:

if ($hadoop_ha == "disabled") { hadoop::secondarynamenode { "secondary namenode":
namenode_host => $hadoop_namenode_host,
namenode_port => $hadoop_namenode_port,
auth => $hadoop_security_authentication,
}
}

So, I think this is in error and the code should only execute if $hadoop_ha is not equal to
“disabled”. Ie change the equals to a not equals. Can someone who understands these puppet
scripts chime in and let me know if this is the appropriate patch to make? Or am I not understanding
something about these installations?

Mime
View raw message