[email protected] From: <Leidle>, "Leidle, Rob" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, November 28, 2014 at 11:40 AM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: possible bug in puppet installation?
I am running into an issue with the puppet installation, and I think it is a bug (although I don’t want to submit a patch for it until I make sure I understand the issue completely). When I do not specify a secondary name node I am seeing both the namenode and the secondary name node being installed and configured. The bug, I believe, is in the cluster.pp file: https://github.com/apache/bigtop/blob/master/bigtop-deploy/puppet/manifests/cluster.pp On line 224 the logic for secondary namenode is present: if ($hadoop_ha == "disabled") { hadoop::secondarynamenode { "secondary namenode": namenode_host => $hadoop_namenode_host, namenode_port => $hadoop_namenode_port, auth => $hadoop_security_authentication, } } So, I think this is in error and the code should only execute if $hadoop_ha is not equal to “disabled”. Ie change the equals to a not equals. Can someone who understands these puppet scripts chime in and let me know if this is the appropriate patch to make? Or am I not understanding something about these installations?
