[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-15509?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17172046#comment-17172046 ]
Leon Gao commented on HDFS-15509: --------------------------------- [~ayushtkn] Yeah, I agree on the point that to make both NNs consistent is ideal. But the confusing part is the effect of the command can be different based on the sequence of nn in the configuration. If the nn0 is active and nn1 is down then setSafemode will work for nn0 regardless of the state of nn1, but not the same case if nn1 is active and nn0 is down.. I think this is brought up there by [~jiangjianfei] in the ticket [comment|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-8277?focusedCommentId=16580777&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16580777] as well. > Set safemode should not fail if one of the namenode is down. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: HDFS-15509 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-15509 > Project: Hadoop HDFS > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: hdfs > Affects Versions: 3.3.0 > Reporter: Leon Gao > Assignee: Leon Gao > Priority: Minor > Attachments: HDFS-15509.patch > > > When the first namenode (let's say nn0) is down, set safemode command will > always fail unless users manually update the configuration. This is > distracting when debugging issues. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org