And to those of you who may not know, our Docker Solr image for Solr 8 uses Java 11 even though Solr 8 supports Java 8. Solr 9 increases to require Java 11 (not Java 17) and I'm proposing only bumping the Docker-Solr default accordingly upwards (newer). In a container-ized world, I think picking the most recent LTS (which is currently Java 17) should be our standard practice because the onus on upgrading is on *us*, unlike classic bare metal where upgrading effort is on the user. Users have ask for this: https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/issues/231 (3 people +1'ed my proposal to move to Java 17 at this juncture)
~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 4:03 PM David Smiley <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd like to propose that our Docker image for Solr 9 move from Java 11 to > Java 17. Admittedly I don't have any familiarity with running 17, so I > would really like to hear from those of you using it. I'm guessing > (informed from some quick google searches) there are some ~minor > performance improvements but nothing eye-popping there. Mostly, I propose > this because a 9.0 release is an ideal time to make such a change instead > of some minor release in between that could introduce a subtle surprise for > some users. The new Shenandoah GC looks exciting but may not be > sufficiently ready for us to recommend (if I recall from a recent user who > reported a problem with it) -- and that's okay. Having this as an option > for users is great, especially as time progresses and future Docker Solr > releases include minor updates to the JVM base image that will increase the > viability. > > I'm aware our nifty image building enables people to do a custom build to > specify their own preferred FROM image, which is cool. Still, I think we > should move on to 17 as the default. > > ~ David Smiley > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >
