I think most of your problem is coming from the options you are setting: "hadoop jar /hduser/hadoop/share/hadoop/mapreduce/hadoop-mapreduce-examples-2.2.0.jar wordcount *-fs local -jt local* /hduser/mount_point/ /results"
You appear to be directing your namenode to run jobs in the *LOCAL* job runner and directing it to read from the *LOCAL* filesystem. Drop the *-jt*argument and it should run in distributed mode if your cluster is set up right. You don't need to do anything special to point Hadoop towards a NFS location, other than set up the NFS location properly and make sure if you are directing to it by name that it will resolve to the right address. Hadoop doesn't care where it is, as long as it can read from and write to it. The fact that you are telling it to read/write from/to a NFS location that happens to be mounted as a local filesystem object doesn't matter - you could direct it to the local /hduser/ path and set the -fs local option, and it would end up on the NFS mount, because that's where the NFS mount actually exists, or you could direct it to the absolute network location of the folder that you want, it shouldn't make a difference. *Devin Suiter* Jr. Data Solutions Software Engineer 100 Sandusky Street | 2nd Floor | Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Google Voice: 412-256-8556 | www.rdx.com On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Atish Kathpal <[email protected]>wrote: > Hello > > The picture below describes the deployment architecture I am trying to > achieve. > However, when I run the wordcount example code with the below > configuration, by issuing the command from the master node, I notice only > the master node spawning map tasks and completing the submitted job. Below > is the command I used: > > *hadoop jar > /hduser/hadoop/share/hadoop/mapreduce/hadoop-mapreduce-examples-2.2.0.jar > wordcount -fs local -jt local /hduser/mount_point/ /results* > > *Question: How can I leverage both the hadoop nodes for running MR, while > serving my data from the common NFS mount point running my filesystem at > the backend? Has any one tried such a setup before?* > [image: Inline image 1] > > Thanks! >
<<image.png>>
