01.09.11 21:55, Per Steffensen написав(ла):
Vitalii Tymchyshyn skrev:
Hello.
AFAIK now you still have HDFS NameNode and as soon as NameNode is
down - your cluster is down. So, putting scheduling on the same
machine as NameNode won't make you cluster worse in terms of SPOF (at
least for HW
Vitalii Tymchyshyn skrev:
01.09.11 21:55, Per Steffensen написав(ла):
Vitalii Tymchyshyn skrev:
Hello.
AFAIK now you still have HDFS NameNode and as soon as NameNode is
down - your cluster is down. So, putting scheduling on the same
machine as NameNode won't make you cluster worse in terms
is only running on one particular machine, so if that machine goes down
my job will not be triggered. Then I could setup the timer on all or
many machines, but I would not like the job to be run in more than one
instance every 5th minute, so then the timer jobs would need to
coordinate who
would not like the job to be run in more than one instance every 5th
minute, so then the timer jobs would need to coordinate who is actually
starting the job this time and all the rest would just have to do nothing.
Guess I could come up with a solution to that - e.g. writing some lock
stuff using
instance every 5th
minute, so then the timer jobs would need to coordinate who is actually
starting the job this time and all the rest would just have to do nothing.
Guess I could come up with a solution to that - e.g. writing some lock
stuff using HDFS files or by using ZooKeeper. But I would really
on one particular machine, so if that machine goes down my job
will
not be triggered. Then I could setup the timer on all or many machines,
but
I would not like the job to be run in more than one instance every 5th
minute, so then the timer jobs would need to coordinate who is actually
starting
then the timer jobs would need to coordinate who is actually
starting the job this time and all the rest would just have to do
nothing.
Guess I could come up with a solution to that - e.g. writing some
lock
stuff using HDFS files or by using ZooKeeper. But I would really like
if
someone had
then the timer jobs would need to coordinate who is actually
starting the job this time and all the rest would just have to do
nothing.
Guess I could come up with a solution to that - e.g. writing some
lock
stuff using HDFS files or by using ZooKeeper. But I would really like
to be run in more than one instance every 5th
minute, so then the timer jobs would need to coordinate who is
actually
starting the job this time and all the rest would just have to do
nothing.
Guess I could come up with a solution to that - e.g. writing some
lock
stuff using HDFS files
want my timer framework to also be
clustered, distributed and coordinated, so that I will also have my
timer jobs triggered even though 3 out of 10 machines are down.
Regards, Per Steffensen
Ronen Itkin skrev:
If I get you right you are asking about Installing Oozie as Distributed
and/or HA
timer jobs triggered even though 3 out of 10
machines are down.
Regards, Per Steffensen
Ronen Itkin skrev:
If I get you right you are asking about Installing Oozie as Distributed
and/or HA cluster?!
In that case I am not familiar with an out of the box solution by Oozie.
But, I think you
jobs
even if 3 of the 10 machines are down. I want my timer framework to
also be clustered, distributed and coordinated, so that I will also
have my timer jobs triggered even though 3 out of 10 machines are down.
Hello.
AFAIK now you still have HDFS NameNode and as soon as NameNode is down -
your
will be able to run e.g. MapReduce
jobs even if 3 of the 10 machines are down. I want my timer framework
to also be clustered, distributed and coordinated, so that I will
also have my timer jobs triggered even though 3 out of 10 machines
are down.
Hello.
AFAIK now you still have HDFS NameNode and as soon
13 matches
Mail list logo
