Hi Yan,
So I suggest that we introduce a new jvm param
> `preferNettyLeakDetectionPolicy` in bookkeeper, the default value is
> `false`.
>
> If the user config `-DpreferNettyReLeakDetectionPolicy=true`, the
> bookkeeper leak detection policy won't override the netty config. If the ci
> tests, we c
> Make sense.
> There are second level config for the memory detection. The first level is
> netty jvm param `-Dio.netty.leakDetection.level`, the second level is
> bookkeeper config `AbstractConfiguration#setAllocatorLeakDetectionPolicy`.
>
> If the second level be config greater than `Disabl
The vote is now closed, and the release was approved with
5 +1s(3 bindings and 2 non-binding), and I will continue with the
following steps.
Binding votes:
* Enrico Olivelli
* Andrey Yegorov
* Jia Zhai
Non-Binding votes:
* Massimiliano Mirelli
* Yong Zhang
Thank you all for verifying and voting!
+1 (binding)
- verified packages checksum and signatures. They look good.
- the source package build and test all run successfully.
- 'bin/bookkeeper standalone' run well.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 4:52 AM Massimiliano Mirelli <
massimilianomirelli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> * v
> IMO, this is not expected behavior. In our test, both the client and
> server's memory leak detection policy should be gotten from
> `-Dio.netty.leakDetection.level` configuration instead of hard code as
> `LeakDetectionPolicy.Paranoid`
Make sense.
There are second level config for the memory d
