Jorn, If you've configured the Name Node fsimage and edit log replication to both NFS and Secondary Name Node and regularly backup the fsimage and edit logs you would do better investing time in understanding exactly how the Name Node builds up it's internal database and how it applies it's edit logs; 'read the code, Luke'.
Then, if you really want to be prepared, you can then produce some test scenarios by applying a corruption (that the Name Node can't handle automatically) to the fsimage or edit logs on a sacrificial system (VM?) and see if you can recover from this. That way, if you ever get hit with a Name Node corruption you'll be in a much better place to recovery most/all of your data. Even with the best setup it can happen if you hit a 'corner case' scenario. Chris On 12 October 2011 08:50, Jorn Argelo - Ephorus <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > > > I was wondering if there are any (technical) issues with running two > secondary namenodes on two separate servers rather than running just > one. Since basically everything falls or stands with a consistent > snapshot of the namenode fsimage I was considering to run two secondary > namenodes for additional resilience. Has this been done before or am I > being too paranoid? Are there any caveats with doing this? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jorn > >
