You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geode.apache.org by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> on 2020/04/01 22:20:05 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Replace UDP messaging for membership with TCP
> When we move from a reliable UDP implementation to one based on TCP, we
> need to think about how to provide reliability on top of TCP. If you dig
> into TCP, you’ll find that it tries really hard (sometimes up to 15
> minutes!!) but doesn’t guarantee message delivery. Does this matter in
> practice? Yes it does--I’ve worked on geode issues where a faulty network
> cable eventually caused a cluster hang because of a dropped TCP packet.
>
+1. Yes, we are proposing that the new messenger needs to be able to
recreate the TCP connection and resend any unacked messages.
-Dan
Re: [DISCUSS] Replace UDP messaging for membership with TCP
Posted by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>.
It looks like we have consensus to move forward with this proposal. Thanks
all for your comments! I've moved it into "In Development"
Thanks,
-Dan
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 4:47 PM Aaron Lindsey <aa...@apache.org>
wrote:
> This proposal sounds good to me. +1 to using standard security
> implementation based on TLS
>
> > On Apr 1, 2020, at 3:20 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> >> When we move from a reliable UDP implementation to one based on TCP, we
> >> need to think about how to provide reliability on top of TCP. If you
> dig
> >> into TCP, you’ll find that it tries really hard (sometimes up to 15
> >> minutes!!) but doesn’t guarantee message delivery. Does this matter in
> >> practice? Yes it does--I’ve worked on geode issues where a faulty
> network
> >> cable eventually caused a cluster hang because of a dropped TCP packet.
> >>
> >
> > +1. Yes, we are proposing that the new messenger needs to be able to
> > recreate the TCP connection and resend any unacked messages.
> >
> > -Dan
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Replace UDP messaging for membership with TCP
Posted by Aaron Lindsey <aa...@apache.org>.
This proposal sounds good to me. +1 to using standard security implementation based on TLS
> On Apr 1, 2020, at 3:20 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> When we move from a reliable UDP implementation to one based on TCP, we
>> need to think about how to provide reliability on top of TCP. If you dig
>> into TCP, you’ll find that it tries really hard (sometimes up to 15
>> minutes!!) but doesn’t guarantee message delivery. Does this matter in
>> practice? Yes it does--I’ve worked on geode issues where a faulty network
>> cable eventually caused a cluster hang because of a dropped TCP packet.
>>
>
> +1. Yes, we are proposing that the new messenger needs to be able to
> recreate the TCP connection and resend any unacked messages.
>
> -Dan