If you want to protect urself against a rack-switch failure, then you would want to keep ur primary and standby on machines in different racks. Typically, machines in different racks have different subnets.
thanks dhruba On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:10 AM, mac fang <mac.had...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > -- Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba
