Yes, that's right. I tried it, and it worked but I forgot to e-mail saying so.
Thanks!
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> I think that file: is the right way to access the local file system.
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
>
>> Hmm I think it will work if
I think that file: is the right way to access the local file system.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> Hmm I think it will work if you use "file:///..." URIs? I haven't tried in
> a long time though.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Dan Filimon
> wrote:
>
> > I see. Well
Hmm I think it will work if you use "file:///..." URIs? I haven't tried in
a long time though.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Dan Filimon
wrote:
> I see. Well, my use case was wanting to run the job on one machine,
> being lazy and not wanting to put the files on HDFS. :)
>
> On Tue, Feb 12,
I see. Well, my use case was wanting to run the job on one machine,
being lazy and not wanting to put the files on HDFS. :)
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Sean Owen wrote:
> Yes because the input path is something processed by the jobtracker and
> later the tasktrackers themselves, which won't
Yes because the input path is something processed by the jobtracker and
later the tasktrackers themselves, which won't be on your machine
(necessarily).
Mappers can read the local file system but it's not clear what may or may
not be there. Consider the distributed cache for smallish data.
On Tu
