Hi, dhruba, Thanks for sharing. Seems we only need to let NameNode & Backup Node in the same subnet. Why it is a main problem?
regards macf On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Harsh J <qwertyman...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for correcting that :) > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Dhruba Borthakur <dhr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Fb does not use the VIP approach, we tried that but quickly found out > some > > limitations, one main problem being that the failover server pair has to > be > > in the same subnet (for VIP to work). Instead we now use the AvatarNode > > integrated with Zookeeper. > > > > -dhruba > > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Harsh J <qwertyman...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> This is a good approach, is used by many to mask the NameNode address > >> for the DataNodes; and is also good to use while using BackupNode > >> (Even Facebook does this). > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:38 AM, mac fang <mac.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Hi, guys, > >> > > >> > Do we have any plan to enable VIP between NameNode and DataNodes, I > mean > >> > multiple NameNodes and we use a VIP stands before the NNs. Then DNs > only > >> > need to connect to the VIP. I don't know if it is valuable we have > this > >> impl > >> > in our hdsf and if there has any issues? > >> > > >> > Any hints are valuable for me. :) > >> > > >> > regards > >> > macf > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Harsh J > >> www.harshj.com > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba > > > > > > -- > Harsh J > www.harshj.com >
