merlimat edited a comment on pull request #14841:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14841#issuecomment-1077757632
> In Pulsar, there is an application level keepalive solution that should
take care of closing idling connections. That's why TCP/IP keepalive shouldn't
be needed.
Yes, we introduced the application level keep-alive because of the
limitations of keep alive:
* Very long minimum time to detect broken connections
* Configuration of parameter is done in the OS (eg: it's not possible to
override from client library) and it becomes an operational burden to set the
environment when deploy Pulsar and applications that use Pulsar.
I think the current solution should cover all the aspects already covered by
TCP keep-alive.
> pointed out some time ago that Pulsar proxy doesn't use TCP/IP keepalive .
It's a valid point and I think it's worth investigating whether there would be
a benefit in using TCP/IP keepalive in Pulsar.
The Pulsar proxy rely on the fact that application keep-alive are flowing
already in the connection, in both directions from client and broker.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
