Re: Review Request 47160: PXF should be collocated with NAMENODE even if NAMENODE is moved to another host

2016-05-11 Thread Matt
> On May 10, 2016, 12:13 p.m., jun aoki wrote: > > Do we have to Clean PXF from the previous NN node, if the node does no > > longer have any of PXF related ones? (DN, HAWQ etc.?) Did you mean to say, remove the rpms and files? I would be looking into this on a follow-up JIRA. - Matt --

Re: Review Request 47160: PXF should be collocated with NAMENODE even if NAMENODE is moved to another host

2016-05-10 Thread bhuvnesh chaudhary
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47160/#review132531 --- Ship it! Ship It! - bhuvnesh chaudhary On May 10, 2016, 7:26

Re: Review Request 47160: PXF should be collocated with NAMENODE even if NAMENODE is moved to another host

2016-05-10 Thread jun aoki
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47160/#review132518 --- Do we have to Clean PXF from the previous NN node, if the node doe

Re: Review Request 47160: PXF should be collocated with NAMENODE even if NAMENODE is moved to another host

2016-05-10 Thread Lav Jain
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47160/#review132512 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Lav Jain On May 10, 2016, 7:26 a.m., Mat

Re: Review Request 47160: PXF should be collocated with NAMENODE even if NAMENODE is moved to another host

2016-05-10 Thread Lav Jain
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47160/#review132511 --- ambari-web/test/controllers/main/service/reassign/step6_controlle

Re: Review Request 47160: PXF should be collocated with NAMENODE even if NAMENODE is moved to another host

2016-05-10 Thread Goutam Tadi
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47160/#review132476 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Goutam Tadi On May 10, 2016, 7:26 a.m.,