Hi. Thanks for the advice, it seems that the initial approach of having single SecNameNode writing to exports is the way to go.
By the way, I asked this already, but wanted to clarify: * It's possible to set how often SecNameNode checkpoints the data (what is the setting by the way)? * It's possible to let NameNode write to exports as well together with local disk, which ensures the latest possible meta-data in case of disk crash (compared to pereodic check-pointing), but it's going to slow down the operations due to network read/writes. Thanks again. On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Patrick Angeles <[email protected]>wrote: > From what I understand, it's rather tricky to set up multiple secondary > namenodes. In either case, running multiple 2ndary NNs doesn't get you > much. > See this thread: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg06280.html > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Stas Oskin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To clarify, it's either let single SecNameNode to write to multiple NFS > > exports, or actually have multiple SecNameNodes. > > > > Thanks again. > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Stas Oskin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > I'm want to keep a checkpoint data on several separate machines for > > backup, > > > and deliberating between exporting these machines disks via NFS, or > > actually > > > running Secondary Name Nodes there. > > > > > > Can anyone advice what would be better in my case? > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > >
