Using ClientCnxnSocketNetty over ClientCnxnSocketNIO in 3.5

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Using ClientCnxnSocketNetty over ClientCnxnSocketNIO in 3.5

Enrico Olivelli
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using ClientCnxnSocketNetty over ClientCnxnSocketNIO in 3.5

hanm
>> 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), 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 <[hidden email]>
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using ClientCnxnSocketNetty over ClientCnxnSocketNIO in 3.5

Enrico Olivelli
Michael,
Thank you for your quick response

Il gio 20 lug 2017, 19:15 Michael Han <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using ClientCnxnSocketNetty over ClientCnxnSocketNIO in 3.5

hanm
I am not aware any blockers, but there are a few Netty related issues that
I think we should get them fixed before even considering switch to Netty as
default option, such as ZOOKEEPER-2509.

>> I don't know the history of the netty switch

I was not part of history either :) - but I think it's documented in
ZOOKEEPER-733.
I think all you mentioned (ssl, maintenance, performance) were part of
original considerations.

When we reach a stable 3.5 release, I expect there would be more users who
want to (have to) switch to Netty because the client - server SSL was a
long awaited feature.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Michael,
> Thank you for your quick response
>
> Il gio 20 lug 2017, 19:15 Michael Han <[hidden email]> 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
>
> <a href="https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%">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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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
>



--
Cheers
Michael.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using ClientCnxnSocketNetty over ClientCnxnSocketNIO in 3.5

Enrico Olivelli
Il ven 21 lug 2017, 23:02 Michael Han <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> I am not aware any blockers, but there are a few Netty related issues that
> I think we should get them fixed before even considering switch to Netty as
> default option, such as ZOOKEEPER-2509.
>
> >> I don't know the history of the netty switch
>
> I was not part of history either :) - but I think it's documented in
> ZOOKEEPER-733.
> I think all you mentioned (ssl, maintenance, performance) were part of
> original considerations.
>
> When we reach a stable 3.5 release, I expect there would be more users who
> want to (have to) switch to Netty because the client - server SSL was a
> long awaited feature.
>

Thank you
It is clear

Enrico


> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> > Thank you for your quick response
> >
> > Il gio 20 lug 2017, 19:15 Michael Han <[hidden email]> 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
> >
> > <a href="https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%">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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Michael.
>
--


-- Enrico Olivelli
Loading...