Thanks for the response. Well the hanging of BN and its consequences seem to be a scary situation. So when using a CN, in case of a NN failure...we would loose the edits after the last checkpoint, but it seems to be a decent trade-off for the stability which the Backup Node might lack.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sulabh, > > Neither of these nodes have been "productionized" -- so I don't think > anyone would have a good answer for you about what works in > production. They are only available in 0.21 and haven't had any > substantial QA. > > One of the potential issues with the BN is that it can delay the > logging of edits by the primary NN, if the BN were to hang or go > offline. The CN would not have such an issue. > > -Todd > > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM, sulabh choudhury <[email protected]> > wrote: > > As far as my understanding goes, I feel that Backup node is much more > > efficient then the Checkpoint node, as it has the current(up-to-date) > copy > > of file system too. > > I do not understand what would be the use case (in a production > environment) > > tin which someone would prefer Checkpoint node over Backup node, or I > should > > ask, what do people generally prefer of the two and why ? > > > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
