Hi Azeez,Paul,All
Don't think we have come to a conclusion on this. Are we able to finalize
our approach on this as we have come to a juncture where this is required
to proceed further with next release.
Regards,
Jaminda
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Prabath Abeysekera praba...@wso2.com
Hi All,
Please do let us know your feedback as to how we should approach this.
Cheers,
Prabath
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Deependra Ariyadewa d...@wso2.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Prabath Abeysekera praba...@wso2.com
wrote:
Hi Paul,
We indeed tried using namenode
Hi Folks,
I've got a 3rd party dependency (i.e Hadoop/HDFS) to be adapted into GIT
and wondering where exactly I should do the initial developments, etc with
the newly introduced GIT model? I do realize that I could have simply used
a private repository or something and do the initial forking and
Sanjiva/Shankar/Srinath/Isabelle et al,
What do you guys feel about forking Hadoop? IMO, its going to be a major
maintenance overhead.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Prabath Abeysekera praba...@wso2.com
wrote:
Hi Folks,
I've got a 3rd party dependency (i.e Hadoop/HDFS) to be adapted into
Prabath
Does HDFS support MT via multiple namenodes?
Paul
On 15 October 2014 09:49, Prabath Abeysekera praba...@wso2.com wrote:
Hi Folks,
I've got a 3rd party dependency (i.e Hadoop/HDFS) to be adapted into GIT
and wondering where exactly I should do the initial developments, etc with
the
Hi Paul,
We indeed tried using namenode federation as an alternative and IMO, it
doesn't really fit in. One of the issues with that approach is, one
namenode is only capable of handling just one namespace in it. Therefore,
if we are to map tenants with those namespaces, then the deployment would
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Prabath Abeysekera praba...@wso2.com
wrote:
Hi Paul,
We indeed tried using namenode federation as an alternative and IMO, it
doesn't really fit in. One of the issues with that approach is, one
namenode is only capable of handling just one namespace in it.
