[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-4954?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12673094#action_12673094
]
Robert Chansler commented on HADOOP-4954:
-----------------------------------------
Perhaps better is a strategy where the name service conveniently reports its
present view of the topology so that external tools could do consistency checks
and reporting. The system should rely on one source of authoritative
information about the topology. If there are two sources to be compared, why
not three? And which should be authoritative?
What would be best is to derive the topology from the network.
(This supposes that network topology really is all that matters. Suppose, for
instance, that there was a "power supply" topology that did not happen to match
the network topology.)
> Specify node-rack mapping, dfsadmin -report to warn on mismatch
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-4954
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-4954
> Project: Hadoop Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: conf
> Reporter: Marco Nicosia
> Assignee: Jakob Homan
>
> It would be helpful if the operator had some way to specify what rack a node
> is in, perhaps as an annotation in the dfs.hosts file? Subsequently, if a
> node reports that it is in a different rack than specified, dfsadmin -report
> can issue a warning on that fact.
> An additional warning would also be nice: If a rack is configured to have X
> hosts, but in fact has some significant percentage (configurable?) fewer
> hosts than configured, dfsadmin -report should advert to that fact as well.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
