Mailing-List: contact user-help@zookeeper.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of martin@attivio.com designates
 66.227.116.198 as permitted sender)
From: Martin Serrano <martin@attivio.com>
To: "user@zookeeper.apache.org" <user@zookeeper.apache.org>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 21:02:24 -0400
Subject: downsides of disabling ZooKeeper client session timeouts?
Thread-Topic: downsides of disabling ZooKeeper client session timeouts?
Thread-Index: AcwOq4QciDYzAb5SR56vn3v+3KJvuQ==
Message-ID: 
 <9694A6C3D68A4249BD9E1A875B6BA81E0338A6F081@bos0ex01.corp.attivio.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_9694A6C3D68A4249BD9E1A875B6BA81E0338A6F081bos0ex01corpa_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_9694A6C3D68A4249BD9E1A875B6BA81E0338A6F081bos0ex01corpa_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

For one application, whenever we experience a session timeout, we just re-c=
reate the client connection.  This has mostly occurred in test environments=
 when the server was overloaded or when we had a misconfigured timeout that=
 was really low.  As we started to create some general use client re-creati=
on code, it occurred to me we could just disable the session timeout (set i=
t to -1 or excessively large - not sure how).    Are there downsides to thi=
s?  Are there cases where a client will permanently lose the ability to tal=
k to a server even though new clients would have no issues?

Thanks,
-Martin


--_000_9694A6C3D68A4249BD9E1A875B6BA81E0338A6F081bos0ex01corpa_--