[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-2713?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13174317#comment-13174317
]
Uma Maheswara Rao G commented on HDFS-2713:
-------------------------------------------
Hi Todd/ ATM, Before moving, i wanted to know your opinions on this proposal.
> HA : An alternative approach to clients handling Namenode failover.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-2713
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-2713
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: ha, hdfs client
> Affects Versions: HA branch (HDFS-1623)
> Reporter: Uma Maheswara Rao G
> Assignee: Uma Maheswara Rao G
>
> This is the approach for client failover which we adopted when we developed
> HA for Hadoop. I would like to propose thia approach for others to review &
> include in the HA implementation, if found useful.
> This is similar to the ConfiguredProxyProvider in the sense that the it takes
> the address of both the Namenodes as the input. The major differences I can
> see from the current implementation are
> 1) During failover, user threads can be controlled very accurately about *the
> time they wait for active namenode* to be available, awaiting the retry.
> Beyond this, the threads will not be made to wait; DFS Client will throw an
> Exception indicating that the operation has failed.
> 2) Failover happens in a seperate thread, not in the client application
> threads. The thread will keep trying to find the Active Namenode until it
> succeeds.
> 3) This also means that irrespective of whether the operation's RetryAction
> is RETRY_FAILOVER or FAIL, the user thread can trigger the client's failover.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
