|
|
|
|
|
|
by vicaya
6150 days ago
|
|
|
gfs1 is still single master, but the workload is much simpler in this case: it serves the gfs2 master bigtable cluster exclusively. Most of the documented gfs master failures are due to misbehaved map-reduce clients. Also the gfs1 master can be down for extended period of time without affecting the master operations, due to the nature of the cluster (you're unlikely to create a million files per second resulting in much compaction and splits in metadata tablets) The quote you mentioned actually meant that if you use Bigtable on top of gfs1, the single master failure is more apparent due to the low latency requirement of the application that use the Bigtable. |
|
|