zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Using ClientCnxnSocketNetty over ClientCnxnSocketNIO in 3.5
Date Sat, 22 Jul 2017 09:26:32 GMT
Il ven 21 lug 2017, 23:02 Michael Han <hanm@cloudera.com> ha scritto:

> 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.
>

Thank you
It is clear

Enrico


> 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.
>
-- 


-- Enrico Olivelli

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