Il giorno ven 4 gen 2019 alle ore 17:04 Norbert Kalmar <nkal...@cloudera.com.invalid> ha scritto: > > +1 for Netty 4 in 3.5 > > Pretty much all the pros and cons has been said before me. > I would only add that this is not a new functionality that we wan't to > backport. It's a criticall(ish?) bugfix, which requires quite a bit of > change unfortunately. > > Regards, > Norbert > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:36 PM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote: > > > What are those patches exactly? > > > > Comparing the ported version of 3.5 with master I’ve only found 2 patches > > which are missing: > > > > ZOOKEEPER-3146 Limit the maximum client connections per IP in > > NettyServerCnxnFactory > > ZOOKEEPER-3177 Refactor request throttle logic in NIO and Netty to keep > > the same behavior and make the code easier to maintain > > > > None of them are critical I would say. > > Is there anything else I’m missing?
I have compared the histories and I think Andor you are right. master: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/commits/master branch-3.5: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/commits/branch-3.5 Sorry I was thinking to the amount of patches related to TLS stuff , but they are not related to Netty 4. What about branch 3.4 ? We don't have reconfig but the case "Start embedded ZK, stop it and try to restart on the same port" should apply as well. Enrico > > > > Andor > > > > > > > > > > > On 2019. Jan 4., at 16:27, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Il giorno ven 4 gen 2019 alle ore 14:23 Andor Molnar > > > <an...@apache.org <mailto:an...@apache.org>> ha scritto: > > >> > > >> Hi team / Enrico, > > >> > > >> I’d like to get feedback from the community on the following patch > > (moving the discussion from GitHub to here): > > >> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3204 < > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3204> > > >> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/753 < > > https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/753> > > >> > > >> In a nutshell: looks like that Netty 3.10 is broken under Java 11: it > > doesn’t properly close the underlying socket (probably not closing the > > registered NIO selectors) and reconfig tests are unable to re-bind the > > ports. This problem is similar that we already fixed in NIO with the > > following patch: > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/commit/c3babb94275ad667dc71c10dcb08a383a3c154c2 > > < > > https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/commit/c3babb94275ad667dc71c10dcb08a383a3c154c2 > > > > > >> The problem doesn’t show up on trunk which has been recently upgraded > > to Netty 4. > > >> > > >> Repro: > > >> - Start embedded ZK, stop it and try to restart on the same port, or > > >> - Start normal ensemble and reconfig to use different (client) port. > > Then reconfig back to the original port which should fail. (that’s the > > scenario which is covered in ReconfigTest) > > >> > > >> I created the above patch (#753) to backport Netty 4 upgrade to 3.5 and > > it fixes the problem with Java 11 (it doesn’t cause regression in the > > pre-commit build either), but Enrico is having concerns about making such > > big change before the release. > > >> > > >> I tend to agree, but let’s see what are the options. > > >> > > >> Thoughts: > > >> - Do we have to fix this? - Yes. Java 11 is LTS and I the bug is > > critical. > > >> - Can we fix Netty 3? - Maybe. Let’s say we find the bug in Netty 3, > > what can we do? > > >> a) We cannot workaround from ZooKeeper itself and have to submit > > a pull request for Netty. I think it’s quite unlikely that they will accept > > the change given it’s not a security bug, but even if they did, only the > > upgraded version of Netty 3 would work properly with ZooKeeper. Err. > > >> b) We can workaround it from ZooKeeper: that could be option #1, > > but I have a strong feeling about it’s not going to be the case. > > >> - Shall we upgrade to Netty 4? - this is option #2 > > >> > > >> Please share your thoughts, maybe you know about an option #3. > > > > > > Thank you Andor > > > > > > I have thought more about this problem, and I have checked that Netty > > > 3 is really dead/unmantained (last release in 2016). > > > If I understand correctly there is no easy workaround (nothing without > > > hacking Netty 3 internals) > > > > > > As soon as we will declare 3.5.5 "stable" the world will hopefully > > > abandon 3.4 and switch to 3.5 + Netty (because of SSL support). > > > The network stack is very important so it is better to have Netty 4 as > > > foundation, I am thinking about security issues, we won't make an > > > "hotfix" release with the switch to Netty 4 because there is a bad bug > > > in Netty 3. > > > So better to switch now. > > > > > > But Facebooks friends, expecially @ivmaykov did a lot of bugfixes > > > around Netty on master branch, we must be sure that what we are > > > delivering in 3.5.5 is stable. > > > > > > We will also have to state clearly in the "release notes" that Netty > > > version is changed, as this may have a non trivial impact to memory > > > usage (i.e. Netty 4 uses more Direct memory by default) > > > > > > So to recap my final opinion: +1 to switch to Netty 4 if we take care > > > of port all of the fixes around Netty 4 from master branch and we > > > state the switch clearly in the release notes > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Andor > > > >
