On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 11:46 -0700, Doug Cutting wrote: > Rod Taylor wrote: > > The machine the namenode is running on does have very high load at > > times. Do you recommend a separate box for the namenode and jobtracker > > which runs strictly those items? > > That would be optimal, but it shouldn't be required. If a tasktracker > or datanode is sluggish then its impact is small, but if the jobtracker > or namenode become sluggish the impact is systemic. That said, so long
Machine ordered. Thanks. > >>What's in the jobtracker logs around this time? Did it report this > >>tasktracker as lost? > > > > The jobtracker did not indicate such a thing (via an exception anyway). > > Tasktracker connections seem to be established and disconnected from > > fairly frequently. Perhaps this is what you mean? > > No, there's a "lost tracker" message when the jobtracker times out a > tasktracker. These are bad, since the jobtracker then assumes that all > of the temporary map data at that tasktracker is gone, and re-schedules > those map tasks. Ahh. I recall seeing those in the past when tasktrackers actually were dying (you fixed that bug). No, this type of action was not taking place. -- Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
