Mailing-List: contact user-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of maheswara@huawei.com designates
 119.145.14.64 as permitted sender)
From: Uma Maheswara Rao G <maheswara@huawei.com>
To: "user@hadoop.apache.org" <user@hadoop.apache.org>
Subject: RE: checkpointnode backupnode hdfs HA
Thread-Topic: checkpointnode backupnode hdfs HA
Thread-Index: AQHNe4dWo53bysyNwEyeiBIOJVAETZdcGSol//+TL4CAAJ4WkQ==
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:13:00 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <1542FA4EE20C5048A5C2A3663BED2A6B30A61012@szxeml531-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <502CAB3F.6020801@ngdata.com>
 <1542FA4EE20C5048A5C2A3663BED2A6B30A60F6C@szxeml531-mbs.china.huawei.com>,<502CC2B7.10704@ngdata.com>
In-Reply-To: <502CC2B7.10704@ngdata.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Community already gone ahead with the explained HA Solution below. HDFS-162=
3

 Yes, there were alternative solution proposed before (using backupNode app=
roach) as well. like HDFS-2124,HDFS-2064. Not much work done there.

>to come back to one of my previous questions: is replacing (now
>deprecated) secondary namenodes with backup namenodes a future proof
>idea, or should I maybe go for the new HA architecture right away?
I should say yes.

Regards,
Uma
________________________________________
From: Jan Van Besien [janvb@ngdata.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:21 PM
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: checkpointnode backupnode hdfs HA

On 08/16/2012 10:37 AM, Uma Maheswara Rao G wrote:
> Don't confuse with the backupnode/checkpoint nodes here.
>
> The new HA architecture mainly targetted to build HA with Namenode states=
.

Thanks, your explanation is already helpful. If you say "the new HA
architecture", does this mean that the (older) ideas to extend the
backupnode functionality to provide (warm) standby as explained here

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-4539?focusedCommentId=3D126749=
54&page=3Dcom.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#=
comment-12674954

are no longer valid?


Or to come back to one of my previous questions: is replacing (now
deprecated) secondary namenodes with backup namenodes a future proof
idea, or should I maybe go for the new HA architecture right away?

thanks
Jan=