Michael, Thank you for your quick response Il gio 20 lug 2017, 19:15 Michael Han <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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
