On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:00PM, Jagane Sundar wrote: > approaches you are familiar with. Chef/Puppet et. al. are not interesting to
Is this a technical lack of interest as in these solutions do not perform as you expect them or this is a policy thing of some kind? > turned out to be slow as sh**, they seem to have hacked the HDFS layer some > more, in order to actually have a NameNode for metadata, but to use S3 for > storing blocks. They have a protocol s3 to access this. Both of these > approaches have one severe failing - they do not support Append and Hflush. > ergo - no HBase on EMR. I am sure they are working furiously to address this I wonder if you can delve into these details: is it an inherit problem of s3 protocol or something irrelevant to the technicalities? Appreciate your feedback, Cos
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
