Speaking as a developer formerly involved heavily on Windows compatibility,
I can say I have not participated on any significant Windows cluster
deployment in multiple years.  I do occasionally field client-side
questions (e.g. running the CLI on Windows), but not full cluster
deployments.

Unfortunately, I no longer have easy access to a Windows development
environment, so I can't offer as much help as I did in the past.  Lacking
critical mass of committers with dedication to Windows compatibility, I
would approach with caution.

--Chris

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021, 3:45 AM Steve Loughran <ste...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:

> I think it's been a long time since anyone did this.
>
> The engineering was done with microsoft heavily involved, but with their
> focus on Azure *and linux VMs in Azure compute*, I don't think anyone has
> tested -let alone deployed- a windows-based hadoop cluster on recent 3.x
> releases. Certainly (a) our QE teams don't and (b) nobody else files bug
> reports about issues surfacing in testing.
>
> Active Directory is heavily used for kerberos auth.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 10:25, pulkit khandelwal <
> khandelwalpulkit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi team,
> >
> > I am trying to setup a Hadoop cluster using 5 windows nodes. While doing
> so
> > I faced some challenges for which it either takes a lot of time to
> resolve
> > or I don’t find any support on Internet. And even after the setup was
> done
> > the cluster wasn’t robust enough.
> >
> > I am not sure if there’s something I am doing wrong or windows cluster in
> > production is not recommended?
> >
> > If it’s not recommended to use the windows cluster in production, then
> can
> > you please state some reasons for it, as I need some evidence to present
> at
> > my workplace.
> >
> > Please let me know what do you think about this.
> >
> > Looking forward to hearing from you.
> >
> >
> > FYI, this cluster is going to be used in production for running spark
> jobs
> > on HDFS storage.
> >
> > Thanks and regards
> > Pulkit Khandelwal
> >
>

Reply via email to