“fwiw - I think backporting the ability to run on JDK21 (or any newer JDK tbh) should be pretty simple and a favorable cost/benefit. Just want to explore if it's just the GC in the new JDK or something else at runtime people are looking for.”
Some caveats which are not about complexity but which need to be considered: - we removed scripted UDFs to move forward and are not going to remove them in 4.1 (CASSANDRA-18252) - jamm update will be needed, to the version we have in 5.0 or we may need new release of jamm for versions post JDK 17. It may lead to flushing change of behavior etc in a patch release On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 at 10:29, Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > > - [Must have] Minimum JDK21 support on 4.1 and higher > > Is this purely due to genZGC? While it's playing very nicely so far, I > would expect the gap between tuned G1 and genZGC to be less than tuned CMS > and genZGC. > > @Jon Haddad - got any insight on the above (CMS vs. G1 vs. shenandoah vs. > genZGC)? > > fwiw - I think backporting the ability to run on JDK21 (or any newer JDK > tbh) should be pretty simple and a favorable cost/benefit. Just want to > explore if it's just the GC in the new JDK or something else at runtime > people are looking for. > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2025, at 2:14 PM, Jaydeep Chovatia wrote: > > > - [Must have] Minimum JDK21 support on 4.1 and higher > - > > >
