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 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Cheers Michael.
