-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
Ability to pass connection policy configuration values to http client in transport layer #7126
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
kushagraThapar
wants to merge
2
commits into
Azure:master
from
kushagraThapar:fix_http_transport_client_connection_config
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
isn't
HttpClient.createFixed(.)also used for GW?How does
HttpClient.createFixed(.)distinguish between GW and DirectHttps?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, it is used for both Gateway and Direct Https. They are different and I think that is the problem.
There is no way to set idle connection timeout, max pool size, etc. for Direct Https Client, because it doesn't have
connectionPolicyobject .While Gateway Https client reads these values from
connectionPolicyobject which gets passed to it when we create https client.To solve this problem, in this PR, I have kept same configuration for Direct Https and Gateway Http Clients. So that end users can configure these http clients through
connectionPolicyobject.I believe this problem also persists in V2.
You can see both Gateway and Direct Http clients are built using different configuration.
Gateway: https://github.com/Azure/azure-cosmosdb-java/blob/master/sdk/src/main/java/com/microsoft/azure/cosmosdb/rx/internal/RxDocumentClientImpl.java#L392
Direct Https: https://github.com/Azure/azure-cosmosdb-java/blob/master/direct-impl/src/main/java/com/microsoft/azure/cosmosdb/internal/directconnectivity/HttpTransportClient.java#L81
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@kushagraThapar that is kind of on purpose.
GW and Direct are two different modes, and even in Direct mode you may need different configuration setting for the connections to BE nodes vs connections to GW (for query).
As an example, RNTBD has its own way of configuration for its connection stack.
I think we might need ConnectionPolicy#idleTimeToGW and ConnectionPolicy#idleTimeForDiredct something along on those lines. similar for connection pool size.
Let's say if you have 4000 replicas your connection pool size for direct at least has to be >= 4000. but as we know even in Direct mode some request go to GW we need a separate connection pool to GW. With the change you made, increasing Direct connection pool size will unnecessarily increase the connection pool size for GW as well which is not the right thing to do.
Ping me to discuss this offline over teams.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed, let's talk offline.