Actually, I hava readed about: The term "secondary name-node" is somewhat misleading. It is not a name-node in the sense that data-nodes cannot connect to the secondary name-node, and in no event it can replace the primary name-node in case of its failure.
But today, I read another article in the hadoop wiki http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/NameNode, which contain: The NameNode is a Single Point of Failure for the HDFS Cluster. There is support for NameNodeFailover <http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/NameNodeFailover>, with a SecondaryNameNode <http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/SecondaryNameNode> hosted on a separate machine being able to stand in for the original NameNode if it goes down. I think it is wrong, please correct it. 2008/9/6, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > See http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/FAQ#7 and > http://hadoop.apache.org/core/docs/r0.17.2/hdfs_user_guide.html#Secondary+Namenode > > Regards, > > J-D > > On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 5:26 AM, 叶双明 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi all! > > > > The NameNode is a Single Point of Failure for the HDFS Cluster. There > > is support for NameNodeFailover, with a SecondaryNameNode hosted on a > > separate machine being able to stand in for the original NameNode if > > it goes down. > > > > Is it right? is SecondaryNameNode in support for the NameNode? > > > > Sorry for my englist!! > > 明 > > > -- Sorry for my englist!! 明
