On 05/05/11 19:14, Matthew Foley wrote:
a node (or rack) is going down, don't replicate == DataNode Decommissioning.
This feature is available. The current usage is to add the hosts to be decommissioned to the
exclusion file named in dfs.hosts.exclude, then use DFSAdmin to invoke
Ah, so you're suggesting there should be some hysteresis in the system,
delaying response for a while to large-scale events?
In particular, are you suggesting that for anticipated events, like
I'm taking this rack offline for 30 minutes,
but it will be back with data intact,
On 04/05/11 19:59, Matt Goeke wrote:
Mike,
Thanks for the response. It looks like this discussion forked on the CDH
list so I have two different conversations now. Also, you're dead on
that one of the presentations I was referencing was Ravi's.
With your setup I agree that it would have made
a node (or rack) is going down, don't replicate == DataNode Decommissioning.
This feature is available. The current usage is to add the hosts to be
decommissioned to the exclusion file named in dfs.hosts.exclude, then use
DFSAdmin to invoke -refreshNodes. (Search for decommission in DFSAdmin
Hey Matt,
we are using the same Dell boxes, and we can get 2 GB/s per node (read and
write) without problems.
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Matt Goeke msg...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been reviewing quite a few presentations on the web from
various businesses, in addition to the ones I
