Re: The CI tests didn't cover bookkeeper V2 protocol.

I submit https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3794 for it. Please help to view it when you are in inconvenient.

Re: The CI tests didn't cover bookkeeper V2 protocol.

+1 Thanks ZhangJian He On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 10:08, Hang Chen wrote: > +1 for Yong's suggestion. > > Thanks, > Hang > > Yan Zhao 于2023年2月20日周一 16:55写道： > > > > > According to the original PR's motivation > > > , we wrapped a Netty > > >

Re: The CI tests didn't cover bookkeeper V2 protocol.

+1 for Yong's suggestion. Thanks, Hang Yan Zhao 于2023年2月20日周一 16:55写道： > > > According to the original PR's motivation > > , we wrapped a Netty > > allocator > > and want to configure something through bookkeeper. > > So the user will use our

Re: The CI tests didn't cover bookkeeper V2 protocol.

> According to the original PR's motivation > , we wrapped a Netty > allocator > and want to configure something through bookkeeper. > So the user will use our customized allocator and need to obey the rules > we introduced. Then the Netty's

Re: The CI tests didn't cover bookkeeper V2 protocol.

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

Re: The CI tests didn't cover bookkeeper V2 protocol.

> 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

Re: The CI tests didn't cover bookkeeper V2 protocol.

> 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

Re: The CI tests didn't cover bookkeeper V2 protocol.

Hi horizonzy, Thanks for raising this discussion. > the netty jvm param `-Dio.netty.leakDetection.level` didn't work, it will be overridden by our custom config. > In our tests, we config `-Dio.netty.leakDetection.level=paranoid`, but it will be overridden by `disabled`. IMO, this is

The CI tests didn't cover bookkeeper V2 protocol.

In https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3751, it report a bug: The bookkeeper client read operation timeout. After our research, we found that the bookkeeper client ignore the response from bookie server. (See https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3751 to get the detailed). The