Do you see viewfs mounts coming useful there (i.e. in place of hardlinks across NSes)?
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Michael Segel <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually creating links, symbolic or hard links makes sense in a couple of > scenarios. > Especially in terms of hive... ;-) > > So it kind of goes back to my extension of the question about that Jira > (HDFS-3370) to see if its alive or just forgotten? > > The point is that one of the arguments against doing it didn't make sense. > Creating hard links across Name Spaces. > IMHO you'd want to create hard links within the same NN. Maybe a symbolic > link across name spaces, but even then, I'm not so sure... still need to > think more about the problem. > > On May 15, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Harsh J <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Namespace divides are designed with application-level separation in >> mind. Sharing a file across namespaces does not make a whole lot of >> sense to me. >> >> Anyhow, the data is on the same set of DNs, and there's HA for NN's >> own availability (if thats really a concern), so I don't see why >> anyone would like to _maintain_ two synced copies of files as thats >> just data duplication when all you need is a simple path (viewfs)/URI >> (hdfs) to access a file lying on a different NN. >> >> The reason you mention of metadata availability doesn't sound logical >> - in such a case a person has to build a self failover of URIs for >> said file, which they can simply avoid by using HDFS HA for the >> hosting NN. >> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Michael Segel >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Quick question... >>> So when we have a cluster which has multiple namespaces (multiple name >>> nodes) , why would you have a file in two different namespaces? >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Harsh J >> > -- Harsh J
