Subject: [DISCUSS] KIP-601: Configurable socket connection timeout


Hi Colin,

I do agree about the `leastLoadedNode` case. My question was about the
other cases where we are connecting to a specific node: fetch requests to
leaders, produce requests to leaders, requests to group coordinators,
requests to controller etc. It will be good to either quantify that these
connections are less common and hence less critical in terms of performance
in typical deployments or describe the impact on these connections from the
proposed change in default behaviour. It is perfectly fine if connections
to specific nodes don't benefit from the new timeout, I was looking for
analysis which says they aren't made any worse either, especially in the
context of other connection rate limiting/quota work we are proposing like
KIP-612.

Regards,

Rajini
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 8:48 PM Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: