You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to common-user@hadoop.apache.org by tim robertson <ti...@gmail.com> on 2009/08/12 13:05:10 UTC
What OS?
Hi all,
Is fedora a decent choice of OS for a new hadoop cluster? All our
other stuff is fedora, but is there was a strong case to move to
something else?
Cheers
Tim
Re: What OS?
Posted by Scott Carey <sc...@richrelevance.com>.
On 8/14/09 6:27 AM, "Brian Bockelman" <bb...@cse.unl.edu> wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Jason Venner wrote:
>
>> Anyone have any performance numbers for Solaris or ZFS based
>> datanodes.
>>
>> The directory and inode cache sizes are a limiting factor for linux
>> for
>> large and busy datanodes.
>
> I haven't run into this at all, and we have quite large and busy
> datanodes.
>
> However, I would recommend making sure you pick an OS you are
> comfortable administrating. It doesn't do you any good to run Solaris
> due to speed (whatever the performance may be, better or worse) if it
> takes you twice as long to get basic admin tasks done.
>
> I haven't benchmarked our Solaris nodes vs Linux nodes. However,
> anecdotally, HDFS on Solaris/ZFS consumes significantly more CPU than
> HDFS on Linux/ext3.
>
> Brian
I wonder if the extra CPU has anything to do with the ZFS checksums.
Perhaps it is lower with ZFS checksums off? Since HDFS is already doing
checksums on the data that should be safe.
On the other hand, with ZFS you can get transparent, very fast compression
for free.
ext3 tends to get very fragmented very fast if there are concurrent writes.
XFS avoids that but only if you set the allocsize mount parameter large
enough. In theory, ZFS should avoid fragmentation fairly well for
write-once data like HDFS but I have no experience with that in practice.
>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:45 AM, tim robertson <timrobertson100@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks guys. I'll chat with sys admin and see what he thinks.
>>> We knew fedora would require a 6 month rebuild
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Edward Capriolo<edlinuxguru@gmail.com
>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Brian Bockelman<bbockelm@cse.unl.edu
>>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Tim,
>>>>>
>>>>> One consideration is "how long is this OS version going to be
>>>>> receiving
>>>>> updates?" or "Do I do the operations team any favor by having them
>>> upgrade
>>>>> every 6 months?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I'd avoid Fedora for a production cluster because the
>>>>> lack
>>> of
>>>>> long-lived releases means that you'll be spending extra effort on
>>> upgrading
>>>>> the OS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 12, 2009, at 6:05 AM, tim robertson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is fedora a decent choice of OS for a new hadoop cluster? All our
>>>>>> other stuff is fedora, but is there was a strong case to move to
>>>>>> something else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CentOS and Scientific Linux are Red Hat Enterprise Linux clones. I
>>>> advice people to go with them. Most of this is based on the fact
>>>> that
>>>> CentOS is very compatible with RHEL. This is important because
>>>> packaged, but not open source software, is typically targeted at
>>>> RHEL.
>>>> You can read about someone trying to install WebSphere on say Fedora
>>>> Core and see the hard aches. As mentioned above support life is an
>>>> issue. RHEL/CENT 5 will be supported until 2014.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/
>>>>
>>>> The Fedora line typically has support life of a few months. So your
>>>> package support dries up fast and then you have to get good with
>>>> RPM-build fast :)
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pro Hadoop, a book to guide you from beginner to hadoop mastery,
>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/1430219424?tag=jewlerymall
>> www.prohadoopbook.com a community for Hadoop Professionals
>
Re: What OS?
Posted by Brian Bockelman <bb...@cse.unl.edu>.
On Aug 13, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Jason Venner wrote:
> Anyone have any performance numbers for Solaris or ZFS based
> datanodes.
>
> The directory and inode cache sizes are a limiting factor for linux
> for
> large and busy datanodes.
I haven't run into this at all, and we have quite large and busy
datanodes.
However, I would recommend making sure you pick an OS you are
comfortable administrating. It doesn't do you any good to run Solaris
due to speed (whatever the performance may be, better or worse) if it
takes you twice as long to get basic admin tasks done.
I haven't benchmarked our Solaris nodes vs Linux nodes. However,
anecdotally, HDFS on Solaris/ZFS consumes significantly more CPU than
HDFS on Linux/ext3.
Brian
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:45 AM, tim robertson <timrobertson100@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
>> Thanks guys. I'll chat with sys admin and see what he thinks.
>> We knew fedora would require a 6 month rebuild
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Edward Capriolo<edlinuxguru@gmail.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Brian Bockelman<bbockelm@cse.unl.edu
>>> >
>> wrote:
>>>> Hey Tim,
>>>>
>>>> One consideration is "how long is this OS version going to be
>>>> receiving
>>>> updates?" or "Do I do the operations team any favor by having them
>> upgrade
>>>> every 6 months?"
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I'd avoid Fedora for a production cluster because the
>>>> lack
>> of
>>>> long-lived releases means that you'll be spending extra effort on
>> upgrading
>>>> the OS.
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 12, 2009, at 6:05 AM, tim robertson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is fedora a decent choice of OS for a new hadoop cluster? All our
>>>>> other stuff is fedora, but is there was a strong case to move to
>>>>> something else?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> CentOS and Scientific Linux are Red Hat Enterprise Linux clones. I
>>> advice people to go with them. Most of this is based on the fact
>>> that
>>> CentOS is very compatible with RHEL. This is important because
>>> packaged, but not open source software, is typically targeted at
>>> RHEL.
>>> You can read about someone trying to install WebSphere on say Fedora
>>> Core and see the hard aches. As mentioned above support life is an
>>> issue. RHEL/CENT 5 will be supported until 2014.
>>>
>>> http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/
>>>
>>> The Fedora line typically has support life of a few months. So your
>>> package support dries up fast and then you have to get good with
>>> RPM-build fast :)
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Pro Hadoop, a book to guide you from beginner to hadoop mastery,
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/1430219424?tag=jewlerymall
> www.prohadoopbook.com a community for Hadoop Professionals
Re: What OS?
Posted by "Bogdan M. Maryniuk" <bo...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Edward Capriolo<ed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Linux is the main target platform.you chose another
> platform you have more work for yourself.
Well, in some cases yes, as long as you have JNI... :-( That's why Sun
discourage people to use it and wants things done in a plain Java.
However, it is not always possible (e.g. FUSE).
> if you have a problem like
> the one I had, probably no one else has the same environment as you so
> replicating your issue could be difficult.
Agreed here. However, I don't know what is bigger evil: to ditch some
questionable features (FUSE, for example) or trembling that %$#@ ext3
just died again?
--
Kind regards, BM
Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.
Re: What OS?
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>.
Edward Capriolo wrote:
> while I completely agree with you about freebsd, that is not the point
> I was driving at. Linux is the main target platform.you chose another
> platform you have more work for yourself.if you have a problem like
> the one I had, probably no one else has the same environment as you so
> replicating your issue could be difficult.
I agree, but would note that even on linux you can encounter fun, such as
* JRockit vs Sun JVM problems
* DNS quirks due to where your cluster lives
* timezone isses (not seen this in hadoop, but I have in Axis 1, where
something didnt work when local TZ== GMT)
* OS locale issues (common in turkish locales, as "I".toLower()!="i") there)
..etc. Your cluster is different from everyone elses
Yet by encountering those problems, and tracking down and fixing them
yourself, and getting those patches back in, life will be easier for the
people who follow you.
Therefore I say: go out and explore, but expect that the further you
deviate from the "approved" solution: single locked down Linux cluster
with well-managed DNS, rDNS, NTP, running Sun java6, the more obscure
the problems that surface will be, and the more the codebase will
benefit from your experiences, provided you push your patches back,
-steve
Re: What OS?
Posted by Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>.
while I completely agree with you about freebsd, that is not the point
I was driving at. Linux is the main target platform.you chose another
platform you have more work for yourself.if you have a problem like
the one I had, probably no one else has the same environment as you so
replicating your issue could be difficult.
On 8/16/09, Bogdan M. Maryniuk <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Edward Capriolo<ed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> My quick fix was to turn off compression. I am probably the ONLY
>> person on the internet trying to do this.
>
> Well, yes... Because why do the hell you need that FreeBSD thing with
> outdated and nearly unusable ZFS (although they claim they fixed
> anyhow v13 recently on dev 8.0 and it does not crashes that miserably
> as before) and bad Java, if there is OpenSolaris? Same to GlassFish:
> branch for FreeBSD never touched two years, AFAIK...
>
> IMO, FreeBSD thing is only good for a routers due to TCP/IP stack
> (although recent changes in OpenSolaris and a Crossbow project says
> also really a lot), but for what else?..
>
> P.S. FUSE: it is userland. Thus DFS + FUSE = FUBAR. :-)
>
> --
> Kind regards, BM
>
> Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.
>
Re: What OS?
Posted by "Bogdan M. Maryniuk" <bo...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Edward Capriolo<ed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My quick fix was to turn off compression. I am probably the ONLY
> person on the internet trying to do this.
Well, yes... Because why do the hell you need that FreeBSD thing with
outdated and nearly unusable ZFS (although they claim they fixed
anyhow v13 recently on dev 8.0 and it does not crashes that miserably
as before) and bad Java, if there is OpenSolaris? Same to GlassFish:
branch for FreeBSD never touched two years, AFAIK...
IMO, FreeBSD thing is only good for a routers due to TCP/IP stack
(although recent changes in OpenSolaris and a Crossbow project says
also really a lot), but for what else?..
P.S. FUSE: it is userland. Thus DFS + FUSE = FUBAR. :-)
--
Kind regards, BM
Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.
Re: What OS?
Posted by Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Bogdan M.
Maryniuk<bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Tom Wheeler<to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd expect performance between either OS on the same hardware to be
>> pretty similar, but it's always hard to speculate on performance. The
>> best option would be for you to do a proof of concept with a couple of
>> machines so you can gauge what performance would be like based on the
>> actual jobs you'll be running.
>
> That's what I basically said before. :-)
>
> My few cents in this conversation: personally I go Solaris instead of
> Linux for other reasons. It is ZFS, self-healing, zones, better TCP/IP
> stack, better Sun Java, its overall stability etc. Performance is not
> primary point actually — I bet more on stability and manageability,
> which I find much more sophisticated on OpenSolaris, rather than on
> Linux (although OpenSolaris has lots of quite ugly things too)...
> Although, recent changes in OpenSolaris (e.g. new memory management)
> only proves more and more that my decision to drop Linux was damn
> right. :-)
>
> --
> Kind regards, BM
>
> Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.
>
More two cents coming from me. Often picking the target platform of
the project is a safe bet. For example, say you desire to use the
fuse-dfs front end. Often times if you chose the same platform as the
majority of the community you can either find a binary package, or be
relatively confident that the install will go easy.
Now a quick retort to this that thinking is "Hadoop is open source it
should build on every platform". That thinking is true with a wrinkle
or two. Suppose you want to start using the fuse front end for the DFS
and your OS is say FreeBSD. You are entering uncharted waters, you
might hit some some minor incompatibility like something between make
and GMake, and you might have to start patching scripts, patching
code, or opening a Jira and asking for help it could be anywhere from
a quick fix to a tricky fix. Whereas someone who installed a more
tested platform had might have got it running out of the box and moved
onto bigger and better things like actually using fuse-dfs.
A quick example with this our cluster is Cent5. Someone hit me with a
requirement to be able to kick off jobs from a node running FreeBSD.
When i try to kick up a job using the compression libraries it failed,
most likely because I did had to use a ported/jvm that is not exactly
identical to the sun JVM or maybe something in the native libraries.
My quick fix was to turn off compression. I am probably the ONLY
person on the internet trying to do this. It could take hours/days of
research for me to figure out what is going on here. (I do have better
things to do)
So even though you can probably run a cluster with FreeBSD or Windows
ME you are definitely making more work for yourself and you are on an
island if you have an issue.
Re: What OS?
Posted by "Bogdan M. Maryniuk" <bo...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Tom Wheeler<to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd expect performance between either OS on the same hardware to be
> pretty similar, but it's always hard to speculate on performance. The
> best option would be for you to do a proof of concept with a couple of
> machines so you can gauge what performance would be like based on the
> actual jobs you'll be running.
That's what I basically said before. :-)
My few cents in this conversation: personally I go Solaris instead of
Linux for other reasons. It is ZFS, self-healing, zones, better TCP/IP
stack, better Sun Java, its overall stability etc. Performance is not
primary point actually — I bet more on stability and manageability,
which I find much more sophisticated on OpenSolaris, rather than on
Linux (although OpenSolaris has lots of quite ugly things too)...
Although, recent changes in OpenSolaris (e.g. new memory management)
only proves more and more that my decision to drop Linux was damn
right. :-)
--
Kind regards, BM
Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.
Re: What OS?
Posted by Tom Wheeler <to...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Bogdan M.
Maryniuk<bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Any pointers on this?
>
> You might start here: http://www.sean.de/Solaris/soltune.html
Check these out too:
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/Networks
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-3681/abeir?a=view
I'd also add that you can tune a Linux system for maximum performance
at a single task too, though recent kernels have a pretty good
autotuning capability that makes this unnecessary in most cases.
I'd agree with some of the others' advice that you should probably
pick an OS for ease of administration, availability of updates,
overall cost and so on. Either Solaris or Linux would be a good
choice.
I'd expect performance between either OS on the same hardware to be
pretty similar, but it's always hard to speculate on performance. The
best option would be for you to do a proof of concept with a couple of
machines so you can gauge what performance would be like based on the
actual jobs you'll be running.
--
Tom Wheeler
http://www.tomwheeler.com/
Re: What OS?
Posted by "Bogdan M. Maryniuk" <bo...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Todd Lipcon<to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> Also make sure you
>> tuned TCP/IP stack, which is by default too conservative.
>>
>
> Any pointers on this?
You might start here: http://www.sean.de/Solaris/soltune.html
--
Kind regards, BM
Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.
Re: What OS?
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Bogdan M. Maryniuk <
bogdan.maryniuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also make sure you
> tuned TCP/IP stack, which is by default too conservative.
>
Any pointers on this? Would be interesting to see before/after tuning
benchmarks as well. Assuming this is a runtime tunable through something
like sysctl, it shouldn't be too hard to run a sort before and after.
-Todd
Re: What OS?
Posted by "Bogdan M. Maryniuk" <bo...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Jason Venner<ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone have any performance numbers for Solaris or ZFS based datanodes.
>
> The directory and inode cache sizes are a limiting factor for linux for
> large and busy datanodes.
Uhmm... I do run it on zoned OpenSolaris, but I don't have a real
numbers, since you have to measure it yourself on the same hardware.
Actually, Phoronix.com (Warning: Biased Linux fanboys!) has a general
performance tests and they usually claim that Linux is mostly as twice
as faster at everything. However, I never saw such slow ZFS as they
show on their benchmarks as well as other factors are sometimes
ridiculously slow (some of them are true).
That's is really interesting to measure it on a two identical clusters
and see how well it works all together (I/O, memory, Networking etc).
But that's needed to kill lots of time for that, to make such
measurements properly, otherwise you will go definitely wrong
conclusions. However, building two identical clusters just for test —
lilbit boring. :-) And I seriously won't go Linux anyway due to a big
number of other reasons, even if someone proves OpenSolaris bit
slower.
At least what I can tell you right away: ZFS is a killer all aspects
to any FS Linux has at the moment (including bloody alpha BTRFS that
suffers due to weak for higher loads software RAID layer that is in a
Linux kernel) and Java runs faster on Solaris. Also make sure you
tuned TCP/IP stack, which is by default too conservative.
If you could try to measure it — we would really appreciate that!
--
Kind regards, BM
Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.
Re: What OS?
Posted by Jason Venner <ja...@gmail.com>.
Anyone have any performance numbers for Solaris or ZFS based datanodes.
The directory and inode cache sizes are a limiting factor for linux for
large and busy datanodes.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:45 AM, tim robertson <ti...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Thanks guys. I'll chat with sys admin and see what he thinks.
> We knew fedora would require a 6 month rebuild
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Edward Capriolo<ed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Brian Bockelman<bb...@cse.unl.edu>
> wrote:
> >> Hey Tim,
> >>
> >> One consideration is "how long is this OS version going to be receiving
> >> updates?" or "Do I do the operations team any favor by having them
> upgrade
> >> every 6 months?"
> >>
> >> Personally, I'd avoid Fedora for a production cluster because the lack
> of
> >> long-lived releases means that you'll be spending extra effort on
> upgrading
> >> the OS.
> >>
> >> Brian
> >>
> >> On Aug 12, 2009, at 6:05 AM, tim robertson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Is fedora a decent choice of OS for a new hadoop cluster? All our
> >>> other stuff is fedora, but is there was a strong case to move to
> >>> something else?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>> Tim
> >>
> >>
> >
> > CentOS and Scientific Linux are Red Hat Enterprise Linux clones. I
> > advice people to go with them. Most of this is based on the fact that
> > CentOS is very compatible with RHEL. This is important because
> > packaged, but not open source software, is typically targeted at RHEL.
> > You can read about someone trying to install WebSphere on say Fedora
> > Core and see the hard aches. As mentioned above support life is an
> > issue. RHEL/CENT 5 will be supported until 2014.
> >
> > http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/
> >
> > The Fedora line typically has support life of a few months. So your
> > package support dries up fast and then you have to get good with
> > RPM-build fast :)
> >
>
--
Pro Hadoop, a book to guide you from beginner to hadoop mastery,
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1430219424?tag=jewlerymall
www.prohadoopbook.com a community for Hadoop Professionals
Re: What OS?
Posted by tim robertson <ti...@gmail.com>.
Thanks guys. I'll chat with sys admin and see what he thinks.
We knew fedora would require a 6 month rebuild
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Edward Capriolo<ed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Brian Bockelman<bb...@cse.unl.edu> wrote:
>> Hey Tim,
>>
>> One consideration is "how long is this OS version going to be receiving
>> updates?" or "Do I do the operations team any favor by having them upgrade
>> every 6 months?"
>>
>> Personally, I'd avoid Fedora for a production cluster because the lack of
>> long-lived releases means that you'll be spending extra effort on upgrading
>> the OS.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2009, at 6:05 AM, tim robertson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Is fedora a decent choice of OS for a new hadoop cluster? All our
>>> other stuff is fedora, but is there was a strong case to move to
>>> something else?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Tim
>>
>>
>
> CentOS and Scientific Linux are Red Hat Enterprise Linux clones. I
> advice people to go with them. Most of this is based on the fact that
> CentOS is very compatible with RHEL. This is important because
> packaged, but not open source software, is typically targeted at RHEL.
> You can read about someone trying to install WebSphere on say Fedora
> Core and see the hard aches. As mentioned above support life is an
> issue. RHEL/CENT 5 will be supported until 2014.
>
> http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/
>
> The Fedora line typically has support life of a few months. So your
> package support dries up fast and then you have to get good with
> RPM-build fast :)
>
Re: What OS?
Posted by Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Brian Bockelman<bb...@cse.unl.edu> wrote:
> Hey Tim,
>
> One consideration is "how long is this OS version going to be receiving
> updates?" or "Do I do the operations team any favor by having them upgrade
> every 6 months?"
>
> Personally, I'd avoid Fedora for a production cluster because the lack of
> long-lived releases means that you'll be spending extra effort on upgrading
> the OS.
>
> Brian
>
> On Aug 12, 2009, at 6:05 AM, tim robertson wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Is fedora a decent choice of OS for a new hadoop cluster? All our
>> other stuff is fedora, but is there was a strong case to move to
>> something else?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Tim
>
>
CentOS and Scientific Linux are Red Hat Enterprise Linux clones. I
advice people to go with them. Most of this is based on the fact that
CentOS is very compatible with RHEL. This is important because
packaged, but not open source software, is typically targeted at RHEL.
You can read about someone trying to install WebSphere on say Fedora
Core and see the hard aches. As mentioned above support life is an
issue. RHEL/CENT 5 will be supported until 2014.
http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/
The Fedora line typically has support life of a few months. So your
package support dries up fast and then you have to get good with
RPM-build fast :)
Re: What OS?
Posted by Brian Bockelman <bb...@cse.unl.edu>.
Hey Tim,
One consideration is "how long is this OS version going to be
receiving updates?" or "Do I do the operations team any favor by
having them upgrade every 6 months?"
Personally, I'd avoid Fedora for a production cluster because the lack
of long-lived releases means that you'll be spending extra effort on
upgrading the OS.
Brian
On Aug 12, 2009, at 6:05 AM, tim robertson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is fedora a decent choice of OS for a new hadoop cluster? All our
> other stuff is fedora, but is there was a strong case to move to
> something else?
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
Re: What OS?
Posted by "Bogdan M. Maryniuk" <bo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:05 PM, tim robertson<ti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is fedora a decent choice of OS for a new hadoop cluster? All our
> other stuff is fedora, but is there was a strong case to move to
> something else?
Not that is known to the world. For example, I am using OpenSolaris
and running Hadoop on zones. No problems other than zone should point
to a real device.
--
Kind regards, BM
Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely.