zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Using ClientCnxnSocketNetty over ClientCnxnSocketNIO in 3.5
Date Fri, 21 Jul 2017 21:01:21 GMT
I am not aware any blockers, but there are a few Netty related issues that
I think we should get them fixed before even considering switch to Netty as
default option, such as ZOOKEEPER-2509.

>> I don't know the history of the netty switch

I was not part of history either :) - but I think it's documented in
ZOOKEEPER-733.
I think all you mentioned (ssl, maintenance, performance) were part of
original considerations.

When we reach a stable 3.5 release, I expect there would be more users who
want to (have to) switch to Netty because the client - server SSL was a
long awaited feature.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Michael,
> Thank you for your quick response
>
> Il gio 20 lug 2017, 19:15 Michael Han <hanm@cloudera.com> ha scritto:
>
> > >> Is any plan to move to ClientCnxnSocketNetty but default ?
> >
> > The plan was to replace NIO engine. See ZOOKEEPER-733. For some features
> > (like client-server SSL) it is a requirement to switch to Netty. Netty
> > socket implementation is less mature comparing to NIO (there are bugs
> > reported overtime and some of those have not been fixed still),
>
>
> I did this filter on JIRA and I can't find issues related to the client
> side apart from flaky tests
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%
> 20ZOOKEEPER%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20and%
> 20text%20~%20netty%20%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
>
> Do you or anyone else knows about blocker issues reported for the client
> side?
>
> I don't know the history of the netty switch, was it for SSL support or for
> other reasons like more simple maintenance of code, or performance?
>
> Enrico
>
> so it would
> > take a while for it to be the default option.
> >
> > Would be interested to hear if anyone here is using Netty socket and / or
> > client-server SSL in prod and what their feedback is.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I see that ClientCnxnSocketNIO is the default socket type for 3.5.
> > > Does anyone know if ClientCnxnSocketNetty is "better", given that I am
> > not
> > > interested in SSL for my project ?
> > > Is any plan to move to ClientCnxnSocketNetty but default ?
> > >
> > > for 'better' I mean:
> > > - better resource usage
> > > - better latency/throughput
> > >
> > > b.q. I got into https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-823
> > which
> > > is marked for 3.5.4 and 3.6.0, but Netty support is already in
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Enrico
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers
> > Michael.
> >
> --
>
>
> -- Enrico Olivelli
>



-- 
Cheers
Michael.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message