thanks harsh will try it out....... On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Harsh J <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >
