[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-2231?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13081191#comment-13081191
]
Suresh Srinivas commented on HDFS-2231:
---------------------------------------
bq. Allen - Why? Shouldn't they only care about the VIP in a real HA scenario?
What is the value of the VIP if clients are going to be aware of and try both
addresses anyway?
First given VIP is interpreted in many ways - the VIP in this jira is failover
IP address. HDFS-1623 does not mandate/preclude people from using IP failover.
When IP failover is not used, clients will work with both the addresses.
bq. Uma
Certinaly it is worth considering a VIP address for standby. It makes things
much simpler. But as I said in my previous comment, a failover address may not
be employed by some setups.
bq. Todd, Another thought would be to default dfs.namenode.id to "", and if
it's empty, try to discover the ID by iterating through all available
dfs.namenode.rpc-address.*, checking if any of those addresses is bindable as a
local interface. If exactly 1 such IP is found, we can use that ID. If 0 or
more than 1 is found, we would bail out due to indeterminate ID.
I think this is worth considering. However, I think using logical names in the
configuration keys than physical address is a better idea.
> Configuration changes for HA namenode
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-2231
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-2231
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Suresh Srinivas
> Assignee: Suresh Srinivas
> Fix For: HA branch (HDFS-1623)
>
>
> This jira tracks the changes required for configuring HA setup for namenodes.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
