Visioner, I haven't tested it myself but the URI should instead just be the following, since we're not gonna be using a REST API within HAR FS:
har://webhdfs-localhost:50070/HAR/1june2012.har/test.jpg On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:43 AM, Visioner Sadak <[email protected]> wrote: > can we read HAR files frm webhdfs in that case will my url be like > > har://http-localhost:50070/webhdfs/v1/HAR/1june2012.har/test.jpg?op=OPEN > > but will my browser be able to understand this > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Visioner Sadak <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Thanks harsh..... >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Harsh J <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> WebHDFS is faster/scalable as it lets the client directly access a DN >>> to read off of, and hence requires that the client be able to access >>> all nodes of the HDFS cluster. The HttpFs (what hdfsproxy is now >>> 'called') is instead useful as a gateway service if clients are not >>> allowed to access all DN nodes of a given cluster. >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Visioner Sadak >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Hello experts could you judge whether webhdfs is fast or hdfsproxy is >>> > fast, >>> > is hdfs proxy slower coz it uses https only or can we use http also in >>> > hdfsproxy, its also mentioned in this below link,could you guys throw >>> > more >>> > light on advantages and disadvantages of both techniques...... >>> > >>> > >>> > http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/hdfs/r0.21.0/hdfsproxy.html#Tomcat-based+Installation+and+Configuration >>> > in disadvantages section, >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Thanks.... >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Harsh J >> >> > -- Harsh J
