> > But this does make things easier. Although I'm still fairly > confident that it adds too much complexity for little gain though.
Allen,can you please add details on what complexity you are talking about here? (I have already asked this question many times) >From code perspective it is not adding complexity, as I have explained before. You could chose to run the cluster with single namenode and not see much difference. But federation does solve in our case complicated setting up of multiple clusters, balancing the storage across the clusters, lack of single view and duplication of data. So put this in the 'agree to disagree' column. It would still be nice if > you guys could lay off the camelCase options though. Admins hate the shift > key. > I did reply to your comment saying the options are case insensitive. > > BTW, Robert C. asked what I thought you guys should have been > working on instead of Federation. I told him (and you) high availability of > the namenode (which I still believe is necessary for HDFS in more and more > cases), but I've had more time to think about it. So expect my list (which > I'll post here) soon. :p > > Federation is solving an important problem for us. We are looking at HA, as you might have seen in some of the jira activities.
