You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@hadoop.apache.org by David Parks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2013/03/23 07:59:47 UTC

For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode? 

 

It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Azuryy Yu <az...@gmail.com>.
SNN(secondary name node),sorry for typo.
On Mar 24, 2013 12:59 PM, "Azuryy Yu" <az...@gmail.com> wrote:

> IMO, if you run HA, then SSN is not necessary.
> On Mar 24, 2013 12:40 PM, "Harsh J" <ha...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Yep, this is correct - you only need the SecondaryNameNode in 1.x. In
>> 2.x, if you run HA, the standby NameNode role also doubles up
>> automatically as the SNN so you don't need to run an extra.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> > So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
>> > here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version
>> of
>> > the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood
>> everything
>> > correctly. Can you confirm?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > David
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com]
>> > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
>> > To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
>> > Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
>> > Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
>> > CheckPointNode?
>> >
>> > Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
>> > documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by
>> next
>> > release I think).
>> >
>> > And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the
>> SecondaryNameNode
>> > continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hope below link will be useful..
>> >>
>> >> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
>> >>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
>> >>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Varun Kumar.P
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Harsh J
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Harsh J
>>
>

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Azuryy Yu <az...@gmail.com>.
SNN(secondary name node),sorry for typo.
On Mar 24, 2013 12:59 PM, "Azuryy Yu" <az...@gmail.com> wrote:

> IMO, if you run HA, then SSN is not necessary.
> On Mar 24, 2013 12:40 PM, "Harsh J" <ha...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Yep, this is correct - you only need the SecondaryNameNode in 1.x. In
>> 2.x, if you run HA, the standby NameNode role also doubles up
>> automatically as the SNN so you don't need to run an extra.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> > So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
>> > here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version
>> of
>> > the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood
>> everything
>> > correctly. Can you confirm?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > David
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com]
>> > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
>> > To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
>> > Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
>> > Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
>> > CheckPointNode?
>> >
>> > Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
>> > documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by
>> next
>> > release I think).
>> >
>> > And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the
>> SecondaryNameNode
>> > continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hope below link will be useful..
>> >>
>> >> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
>> >>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
>> >>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Varun Kumar.P
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Harsh J
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Harsh J
>>
>

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Azuryy Yu <az...@gmail.com>.
SNN(secondary name node),sorry for typo.
On Mar 24, 2013 12:59 PM, "Azuryy Yu" <az...@gmail.com> wrote:

> IMO, if you run HA, then SSN is not necessary.
> On Mar 24, 2013 12:40 PM, "Harsh J" <ha...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Yep, this is correct - you only need the SecondaryNameNode in 1.x. In
>> 2.x, if you run HA, the standby NameNode role also doubles up
>> automatically as the SNN so you don't need to run an extra.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> > So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
>> > here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version
>> of
>> > the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood
>> everything
>> > correctly. Can you confirm?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > David
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com]
>> > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
>> > To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
>> > Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
>> > Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
>> > CheckPointNode?
>> >
>> > Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
>> > documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by
>> next
>> > release I think).
>> >
>> > And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the
>> SecondaryNameNode
>> > continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hope below link will be useful..
>> >>
>> >> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
>> >>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
>> >>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Varun Kumar.P
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Harsh J
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Harsh J
>>
>

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Azuryy Yu <az...@gmail.com>.
SNN(secondary name node),sorry for typo.
On Mar 24, 2013 12:59 PM, "Azuryy Yu" <az...@gmail.com> wrote:

> IMO, if you run HA, then SSN is not necessary.
> On Mar 24, 2013 12:40 PM, "Harsh J" <ha...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Yep, this is correct - you only need the SecondaryNameNode in 1.x. In
>> 2.x, if you run HA, the standby NameNode role also doubles up
>> automatically as the SNN so you don't need to run an extra.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> > So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
>> > here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version
>> of
>> > the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood
>> everything
>> > correctly. Can you confirm?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > David
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com]
>> > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
>> > To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
>> > Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
>> > Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
>> > CheckPointNode?
>> >
>> > Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
>> > documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by
>> next
>> > release I think).
>> >
>> > And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the
>> SecondaryNameNode
>> > continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hope below link will be useful..
>> >>
>> >> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
>> >>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
>> >>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Varun Kumar.P
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Harsh J
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Harsh J
>>
>

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Azuryy Yu <az...@gmail.com>.
IMO, if you run HA, then SSN is not necessary.
On Mar 24, 2013 12:40 PM, "Harsh J" <ha...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Yep, this is correct - you only need the SecondaryNameNode in 1.x. In
> 2.x, if you run HA, the standby NameNode role also doubles up
> automatically as the SNN so you don't need to run an extra.
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
> > here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version of
> > the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood
> everything
> > correctly. Can you confirm?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
> > To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
> > Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> > Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> > CheckPointNode?
> >
> > Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
> > documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by
> next
> > release I think).
> >
> > And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the
> SecondaryNameNode
> > continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hope below link will be useful..
> >>
> >> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
> >>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
> >>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Varun Kumar.P
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Harsh J
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Harsh J
>

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Azuryy Yu <az...@gmail.com>.
IMO, if you run HA, then SSN is not necessary.
On Mar 24, 2013 12:40 PM, "Harsh J" <ha...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Yep, this is correct - you only need the SecondaryNameNode in 1.x. In
> 2.x, if you run HA, the standby NameNode role also doubles up
> automatically as the SNN so you don't need to run an extra.
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
> > here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version of
> > the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood
> everything
> > correctly. Can you confirm?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
> > To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
> > Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> > Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> > CheckPointNode?
> >
> > Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
> > documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by
> next
> > release I think).
> >
> > And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the
> SecondaryNameNode
> > continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hope below link will be useful..
> >>
> >> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
> >>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
> >>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Varun Kumar.P
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Harsh J
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Harsh J
>

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Azuryy Yu <az...@gmail.com>.
IMO, if you run HA, then SSN is not necessary.
On Mar 24, 2013 12:40 PM, "Harsh J" <ha...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Yep, this is correct - you only need the SecondaryNameNode in 1.x. In
> 2.x, if you run HA, the standby NameNode role also doubles up
> automatically as the SNN so you don't need to run an extra.
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
> > here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version of
> > the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood
> everything
> > correctly. Can you confirm?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
> > To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
> > Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> > Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> > CheckPointNode?
> >
> > Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
> > documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by
> next
> > release I think).
> >
> > And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the
> SecondaryNameNode
> > continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hope below link will be useful..
> >>
> >> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
> >>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
> >>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Varun Kumar.P
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Harsh J
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Harsh J
>

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Azuryy Yu <az...@gmail.com>.
IMO, if you run HA, then SSN is not necessary.
On Mar 24, 2013 12:40 PM, "Harsh J" <ha...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Yep, this is correct - you only need the SecondaryNameNode in 1.x. In
> 2.x, if you run HA, the standby NameNode role also doubles up
> automatically as the SNN so you don't need to run an extra.
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
> > here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version of
> > the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood
> everything
> > correctly. Can you confirm?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
> > To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
> > Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> > Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> > CheckPointNode?
> >
> > Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
> > documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by
> next
> > release I think).
> >
> > And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the
> SecondaryNameNode
> > continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hope below link will be useful..
> >>
> >> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
> >>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
> >>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Varun Kumar.P
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Harsh J
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Harsh J
>

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com>.
Yep, this is correct - you only need the SecondaryNameNode in 1.x. In
2.x, if you run HA, the standby NameNode role also doubles up
automatically as the SNN so you don't need to run an extra.

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
> here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version of
> the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood everything
> correctly. Can you confirm?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
> To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
> Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> CheckPointNode?
>
> Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
> documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by next
> release I think).
>
> And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the SecondaryNameNode
> continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hope below link will be useful..
>>
>> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
>>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
>>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Varun Kumar.P
>
>
>
> --
> Harsh J
>



-- 
Harsh J

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com>.
Yep, this is correct - you only need the SecondaryNameNode in 1.x. In
2.x, if you run HA, the standby NameNode role also doubles up
automatically as the SNN so you don't need to run an extra.

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
> here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version of
> the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood everything
> correctly. Can you confirm?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
> To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
> Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> CheckPointNode?
>
> Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
> documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by next
> release I think).
>
> And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the SecondaryNameNode
> continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hope below link will be useful..
>>
>> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
>>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
>>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Varun Kumar.P
>
>
>
> --
> Harsh J
>



-- 
Harsh J

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com>.
Yep, this is correct - you only need the SecondaryNameNode in 1.x. In
2.x, if you run HA, the standby NameNode role also doubles up
automatically as the SNN so you don't need to run an extra.

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
> here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version of
> the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood everything
> correctly. Can you confirm?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
> To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
> Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> CheckPointNode?
>
> Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
> documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by next
> release I think).
>
> And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the SecondaryNameNode
> continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hope below link will be useful..
>>
>> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
>>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
>>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Varun Kumar.P
>
>
>
> --
> Harsh J
>



-- 
Harsh J

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com>.
Yep, this is correct - you only need the SecondaryNameNode in 1.x. In
2.x, if you run HA, the standby NameNode role also doubles up
automatically as the SNN so you don't need to run an extra.

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
> here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version of
> the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood everything
> correctly. Can you confirm?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
> To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
> Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> CheckPointNode?
>
> Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
> documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by next
> release I think).
>
> And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the SecondaryNameNode
> continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hope below link will be useful..
>>
>> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
>>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
>>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Varun Kumar.P
>
>
>
> --
> Harsh J
>



-- 
Harsh J

RE: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>.
So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version of
the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood everything
correctly. Can you confirm?

Thanks,
David


-----Original Message-----
From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
CheckPointNode?

Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by next
release I think).

And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the SecondaryNameNode
continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there 
>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs 
>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P



--
Harsh J

RE: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>.
So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version of
the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood everything
correctly. Can you confirm?

Thanks,
David


-----Original Message-----
From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
CheckPointNode?

Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by next
release I think).

And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the SecondaryNameNode
continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there 
>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs 
>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P



--
Harsh J

RE: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>.
So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version of
the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood everything
correctly. Can you confirm?

Thanks,
David


-----Original Message-----
From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
CheckPointNode?

Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by next
release I think).

And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the SecondaryNameNode
continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there 
>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs 
>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P



--
Harsh J

RE: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>.
So... the answer is... SecondaryNameNode is what I should be installing
here. And the SecondaryNameNode is essentially just an earlier version of
the checkpoint node, in terms of functionality. If I understood everything
correctly. Can you confirm?

Thanks,
David


-----Original Message-----
From: Harsh J [mailto:harsh@cloudera.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:33 PM
To: <us...@hadoop.apache.org>
Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
CheckPointNode?

Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was a
documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or by next
release I think).

And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the SecondaryNameNode
continues to exist and is fully supported (not deprecated).

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there 
>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs 
>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P



--
Harsh J

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com>.
Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was
a documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or
by next release I think).

And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the
SecondaryNameNode continues to exist and is fully supported (not
deprecated).

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there any
>> reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs it
>> seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P



-- 
Harsh J

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com>.
Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was
a documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or
by next release I think).

And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the
SecondaryNameNode continues to exist and is fully supported (not
deprecated).

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there any
>> reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs it
>> seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P



-- 
Harsh J

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com>.
Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was
a documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or
by next release I think).

And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the
SecondaryNameNode continues to exist and is fully supported (not
deprecated).

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there any
>> reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs it
>> seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P



-- 
Harsh J

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com>.
David,

If the good copy on NFS exists post-crash of the NN, use that for
lesser/zero loss than the SNN which can be an hour old (checkpoint
period) by default. Thats the whole point for running the NFS disk
mount (make sure its softmounted btw, you don't want your NN to hang
if the NFS is hung).

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:58 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the update, I understand now that I'll be installing a "secondary
> name node" which performs checkpoints on the primary name node and keeps a
> working backup copy of the fsimage file.
>
> The primary name node should write its fsimage file to at least 2 different
> physical mediums for improved safety as well (example: locally and an nfs
> share).
>
> One point of query: were the primary name node to be lost, we would be best
> off re-building it and copying the fsimage files into place, either from the
> nfs share, or from the secondary name node, as the situation dictates.
> There's no mechanism to "fail over" to the "secondary name node" per-se.
>
> Am I on track here?
>
> Thanks!
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.hadoop@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:07 AM
> To: user@hadoop.apache.org
> Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> CheckPointNode?
>
> There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
> That was a bug in documentation.
>
> Here is the updated link:
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hope below link will be useful..
>>
>> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
>>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
>>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Varun Kumar.P
>



-- 
Harsh J

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com>.
David,

If the good copy on NFS exists post-crash of the NN, use that for
lesser/zero loss than the SNN which can be an hour old (checkpoint
period) by default. Thats the whole point for running the NFS disk
mount (make sure its softmounted btw, you don't want your NN to hang
if the NFS is hung).

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:58 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the update, I understand now that I'll be installing a "secondary
> name node" which performs checkpoints on the primary name node and keeps a
> working backup copy of the fsimage file.
>
> The primary name node should write its fsimage file to at least 2 different
> physical mediums for improved safety as well (example: locally and an nfs
> share).
>
> One point of query: were the primary name node to be lost, we would be best
> off re-building it and copying the fsimage files into place, either from the
> nfs share, or from the secondary name node, as the situation dictates.
> There's no mechanism to "fail over" to the "secondary name node" per-se.
>
> Am I on track here?
>
> Thanks!
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.hadoop@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:07 AM
> To: user@hadoop.apache.org
> Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> CheckPointNode?
>
> There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
> That was a bug in documentation.
>
> Here is the updated link:
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hope below link will be useful..
>>
>> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
>>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
>>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Varun Kumar.P
>



-- 
Harsh J

RE: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Azuryy Yu <az...@gmail.com>.
yes,you got it. hadoop1.0.x cannot failover auto or mannual. you have to
copy fsimage from SNN to the primary NN.
On Mar 27, 2013 11:29 AM, "David Parks" <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the update, I understand now that I'll be installing a
> "secondary
> name node" which performs checkpoints on the primary name node and keeps a
> working backup copy of the fsimage file.
>
> The primary name node should write its fsimage file to at least 2 different
> physical mediums for improved safety as well (example: locally and an nfs
> share).
>
> One point of query: were the primary name node to be lost, we would be best
> off re-building it and copying the fsimage files into place, either from
> the
> nfs share, or from the secondary name node, as the situation dictates.
> There's no mechanism to "fail over" to the "secondary name node" per-se.
>
> Am I on track here?
>
> Thanks!
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.hadoop@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:07 AM
> To: user@hadoop.apache.org
> Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> CheckPointNode?
>
> There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
> That was a bug in documentation.
>
> Here is the updated link:
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hope below link will be useful..
> >
> > http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
> >> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
> >> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Varun Kumar.P
>
>

RE: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Azuryy Yu <az...@gmail.com>.
yes,you got it. hadoop1.0.x cannot failover auto or mannual. you have to
copy fsimage from SNN to the primary NN.
On Mar 27, 2013 11:29 AM, "David Parks" <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the update, I understand now that I'll be installing a
> "secondary
> name node" which performs checkpoints on the primary name node and keeps a
> working backup copy of the fsimage file.
>
> The primary name node should write its fsimage file to at least 2 different
> physical mediums for improved safety as well (example: locally and an nfs
> share).
>
> One point of query: were the primary name node to be lost, we would be best
> off re-building it and copying the fsimage files into place, either from
> the
> nfs share, or from the secondary name node, as the situation dictates.
> There's no mechanism to "fail over" to the "secondary name node" per-se.
>
> Am I on track here?
>
> Thanks!
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.hadoop@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:07 AM
> To: user@hadoop.apache.org
> Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> CheckPointNode?
>
> There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
> That was a bug in documentation.
>
> Here is the updated link:
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hope below link will be useful..
> >
> > http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
> >> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
> >> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Varun Kumar.P
>
>

RE: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Azuryy Yu <az...@gmail.com>.
yes,you got it. hadoop1.0.x cannot failover auto or mannual. you have to
copy fsimage from SNN to the primary NN.
On Mar 27, 2013 11:29 AM, "David Parks" <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the update, I understand now that I'll be installing a
> "secondary
> name node" which performs checkpoints on the primary name node and keeps a
> working backup copy of the fsimage file.
>
> The primary name node should write its fsimage file to at least 2 different
> physical mediums for improved safety as well (example: locally and an nfs
> share).
>
> One point of query: were the primary name node to be lost, we would be best
> off re-building it and copying the fsimage files into place, either from
> the
> nfs share, or from the secondary name node, as the situation dictates.
> There's no mechanism to "fail over" to the "secondary name node" per-se.
>
> Am I on track here?
>
> Thanks!
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.hadoop@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:07 AM
> To: user@hadoop.apache.org
> Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> CheckPointNode?
>
> There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
> That was a bug in documentation.
>
> Here is the updated link:
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hope below link will be useful..
> >
> > http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
> >> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
> >> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Varun Kumar.P
>
>

RE: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Azuryy Yu <az...@gmail.com>.
yes,you got it. hadoop1.0.x cannot failover auto or mannual. you have to
copy fsimage from SNN to the primary NN.
On Mar 27, 2013 11:29 AM, "David Parks" <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the update, I understand now that I'll be installing a
> "secondary
> name node" which performs checkpoints on the primary name node and keeps a
> working backup copy of the fsimage file.
>
> The primary name node should write its fsimage file to at least 2 different
> physical mediums for improved safety as well (example: locally and an nfs
> share).
>
> One point of query: were the primary name node to be lost, we would be best
> off re-building it and copying the fsimage files into place, either from
> the
> nfs share, or from the secondary name node, as the situation dictates.
> There's no mechanism to "fail over" to the "secondary name node" per-se.
>
> Am I on track here?
>
> Thanks!
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.hadoop@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:07 AM
> To: user@hadoop.apache.org
> Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> CheckPointNode?
>
> There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
> That was a bug in documentation.
>
> Here is the updated link:
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hope below link will be useful..
> >
> > http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
> >> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
> >> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Varun Kumar.P
>
>

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com>.
David,

If the good copy on NFS exists post-crash of the NN, use that for
lesser/zero loss than the SNN which can be an hour old (checkpoint
period) by default. Thats the whole point for running the NFS disk
mount (make sure its softmounted btw, you don't want your NN to hang
if the NFS is hung).

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:58 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the update, I understand now that I'll be installing a "secondary
> name node" which performs checkpoints on the primary name node and keeps a
> working backup copy of the fsimage file.
>
> The primary name node should write its fsimage file to at least 2 different
> physical mediums for improved safety as well (example: locally and an nfs
> share).
>
> One point of query: were the primary name node to be lost, we would be best
> off re-building it and copying the fsimage files into place, either from the
> nfs share, or from the secondary name node, as the situation dictates.
> There's no mechanism to "fail over" to the "secondary name node" per-se.
>
> Am I on track here?
>
> Thanks!
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.hadoop@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:07 AM
> To: user@hadoop.apache.org
> Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> CheckPointNode?
>
> There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
> That was a bug in documentation.
>
> Here is the updated link:
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hope below link will be useful..
>>
>> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
>>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
>>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Varun Kumar.P
>



-- 
Harsh J

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com>.
David,

If the good copy on NFS exists post-crash of the NN, use that for
lesser/zero loss than the SNN which can be an hour old (checkpoint
period) by default. Thats the whole point for running the NFS disk
mount (make sure its softmounted btw, you don't want your NN to hang
if the NFS is hung).

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:58 AM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the update, I understand now that I'll be installing a "secondary
> name node" which performs checkpoints on the primary name node and keeps a
> working backup copy of the fsimage file.
>
> The primary name node should write its fsimage file to at least 2 different
> physical mediums for improved safety as well (example: locally and an nfs
> share).
>
> One point of query: were the primary name node to be lost, we would be best
> off re-building it and copying the fsimage files into place, either from the
> nfs share, or from the secondary name node, as the situation dictates.
> There's no mechanism to "fail over" to the "secondary name node" per-se.
>
> Am I on track here?
>
> Thanks!
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.hadoop@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:07 AM
> To: user@hadoop.apache.org
> Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
> CheckPointNode?
>
> There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
> That was a bug in documentation.
>
> Here is the updated link:
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
> Thanks,
> --Konstantin
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hope below link will be useful..
>>
>> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there
>>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs
>>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Varun Kumar.P
>



-- 
Harsh J

RE: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>.
Thanks for the update, I understand now that I'll be installing a "secondary
name node" which performs checkpoints on the primary name node and keeps a
working backup copy of the fsimage file. 

The primary name node should write its fsimage file to at least 2 different
physical mediums for improved safety as well (example: locally and an nfs
share).

One point of query: were the primary name node to be lost, we would be best
off re-building it and copying the fsimage files into place, either from the
nfs share, or from the secondary name node, as the situation dictates.
There's no mechanism to "fail over" to the "secondary name node" per-se.

Am I on track here?

Thanks!
David


-----Original Message-----
From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.hadoop@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:07 AM
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
CheckPointNode?

There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
That was a bug in documentation.

Here is the updated link:
http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html

Thanks,
--Konstantin

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there 
>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs 
>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P

RE: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>.
Thanks for the update, I understand now that I'll be installing a "secondary
name node" which performs checkpoints on the primary name node and keeps a
working backup copy of the fsimage file. 

The primary name node should write its fsimage file to at least 2 different
physical mediums for improved safety as well (example: locally and an nfs
share).

One point of query: were the primary name node to be lost, we would be best
off re-building it and copying the fsimage files into place, either from the
nfs share, or from the secondary name node, as the situation dictates.
There's no mechanism to "fail over" to the "secondary name node" per-se.

Am I on track here?

Thanks!
David


-----Original Message-----
From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.hadoop@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:07 AM
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
CheckPointNode?

There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
That was a bug in documentation.

Here is the updated link:
http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html

Thanks,
--Konstantin

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there 
>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs 
>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P

RE: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>.
Thanks for the update, I understand now that I'll be installing a "secondary
name node" which performs checkpoints on the primary name node and keeps a
working backup copy of the fsimage file. 

The primary name node should write its fsimage file to at least 2 different
physical mediums for improved safety as well (example: locally and an nfs
share).

One point of query: were the primary name node to be lost, we would be best
off re-building it and copying the fsimage files into place, either from the
nfs share, or from the secondary name node, as the situation dictates.
There's no mechanism to "fail over" to the "secondary name node" per-se.

Am I on track here?

Thanks!
David


-----Original Message-----
From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.hadoop@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:07 AM
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
CheckPointNode?

There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
That was a bug in documentation.

Here is the updated link:
http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html

Thanks,
--Konstantin

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there 
>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs 
>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P

RE: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>.
Thanks for the update, I understand now that I'll be installing a "secondary
name node" which performs checkpoints on the primary name node and keeps a
working backup copy of the fsimage file. 

The primary name node should write its fsimage file to at least 2 different
physical mediums for improved safety as well (example: locally and an nfs
share).

One point of query: were the primary name node to be lost, we would be best
off re-building it and copying the fsimage files into place, either from the
nfs share, or from the secondary name node, as the situation dictates.
There's no mechanism to "fail over" to the "secondary name node" per-se.

Am I on track here?

Thanks!
David


-----Original Message-----
From: Konstantin Shvachko [mailto:shv.hadoop@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:07 AM
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: davidparks21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the
CheckPointNode?

There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
That was a bug in documentation.

Here is the updated link:
http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html

Thanks,
--Konstantin

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there 
>> any reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs 
>> it seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Konstantin Shvachko <sh...@gmail.com>.
There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
That was a bug in documentation.

Here is the updated link:
http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html

Thanks,
--Konstantin

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there any
>> reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs it
>> seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Harsh J <ha...@cloudera.com>.
Neither CheckpointNode nor BackupNode exists in version 1.x. This was
a documentation oversight that should be cleared in the docs now (or
by next release I think).

And on 2.x, neither has been tested for stability and the
SecondaryNameNode continues to exist and is fully supported (not
deprecated).

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there any
>> reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs it
>> seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P



-- 
Harsh J

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Konstantin Shvachko <sh...@gmail.com>.
There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
That was a bug in documentation.

Here is the updated link:
http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html

Thanks,
--Konstantin

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there any
>> reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs it
>> seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Konstantin Shvachko <sh...@gmail.com>.
There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
That was a bug in documentation.

Here is the updated link:
http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html

Thanks,
--Konstantin

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there any
>> reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs it
>> seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by Konstantin Shvachko <sh...@gmail.com>.
There is no BackupNode in Hadoop 1.
That was a bug in documentation.

Here is the updated link:
http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r1.1.2/hdfs_user_guide.html

Thanks,
--Konstantin

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:04 AM, varun kumar <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope below link will be useful..
>
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there any
>> reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs it
>> seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Varun Kumar.P

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by varun kumar <va...@gmail.com>.
Hope below link will be useful..

http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html


On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:

> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there any
> reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode? ****
>
> ** **
>
> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs it
> seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.****
>



-- 
Regards,
Varun Kumar.P

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by varun kumar <va...@gmail.com>.
Hope below link will be useful..

http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html


On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:

> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there any
> reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode? ****
>
> ** **
>
> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs it
> seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.****
>



-- 
Regards,
Varun Kumar.P

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by varun kumar <va...@gmail.com>.
Hope below link will be useful..

http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html


On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:

> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there any
> reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode? ****
>
> ** **
>
> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs it
> seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.****
>



-- 
Regards,
Varun Kumar.P

Re: For a new installation: use the BackupNode or the CheckPointNode?

Posted by varun kumar <va...@gmail.com>.
Hope below link will be useful..

http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hdfs_user_guide.html


On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Parks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:

> For a new installation of the current stable build (1.1.2 ), is there any
> reason to use the CheckPointNode over the BackupNode? ****
>
> ** **
>
> It seems that we need to choose one or the other, and from the docs it
> seems like the BackupNode is more efficient in its processes.****
>



-- 
Regards,
Varun Kumar.P