I'm curious what part of the below communication should restrict it to
private lists?
Anyway, use of dev@hbase for this was fine in my opinion. We try to
discourage discussion on HBase private lists which should really be done on
the dev lists according to the Apache Way.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at
Well...Since that was mentioned anyway, allow me a tiny
correction/clarification.. :)
It's ConsensusNode, not ConsistencyNode, and it's not really custom Paxos
implementation, it's more like interface for coordination service atop
standard NameNode, which may be backed by any consensus library/alg
Ops sorry this was intented for internal lists. Apologies for any
confusion.
Enis
On Monday, April 7, 2014, Enis Söztutar wrote:
> Me and Devaraj attended their talk on their solution for paxos based
> namenode and HBase replication.
>
> They have two solutions, one for single datacenter, and t
Me and Devaraj attended their talk on their solution for paxos based
namenode and HBase replication.
They have two solutions, one for single datacenter, and the other multi DC
geo replication.
For the namenode, there is a wrapper, called ConsistencyNode, that
basically gets the requests, replicat
