> Oleksiy Stashok wrote:
>> I've commited the Async HTTP. So now it's available on trunk and
>> later Jeanfrancois will release Grizzly 1.9 rc2 so everyone will be
>> able to test it.
>> You can find how to enable Async HTTP in previous mails of this
>> thread.
>> Jeanfrancois, pls. see answers on "inlined" bellow :)
>> Thanks.
>> WBR,
>> Alexey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Output buffer.
>>>>>> @@ -54,16 +65,60 @@
>>>>>> * * @author Jean-Francois Arcand
>>>>>> * @author Scott Oaks
>>>>>> + * @author Alexey Stashok
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> -public class SocketChannelOutputBuffer extends
>>>>>> InternalOutputBuffer{
>>>>>> +public class SocketChannelOutputBuffer extends
>>>>>> InternalOutputBuffer {
>>>>>> + private static Logger logger = SelectorThread.logger();
>>>>>> + private static final int DEFAULT_BUFFER_POOL_SIZE = 16384;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + private static int maxBufferPoolSize =
>>>>>> DEFAULT_BUFFER_POOL_SIZE;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> /**
>>>>>> + * ByteBuffer pool to be used with async write
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + private static Queue<ByteBuffer> bufferPool =
>>>>>> + new
>>>>>> ArrayBlockingQueue<ByteBuffer>(maxBufferPoolSize);
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you instead have a pool per instance, and limit the size of
>>>>> the pool based on the number of maxThreads? Take a look at AIO
>>>>>
>>>>> http-aio/src/main/java/com/sun/grizzly/aio/http/
>>>>> AsyncSocketChannelOutputBuffer.java
>>>>>
>>>>> there I avoid synchronized on a single queue.
>> Per instance - yes we can. It will probably improve the perf, but
>> increase memory consumption, so it's trade off here.
>
> Why would it? The idea is to have:
>
> size per instance * instance_number == overall size
>
> Right now you have overall_size shared amongst all instance.
But we don't create the ByteBuffers at startup. We add them by demand.
And shared pool will grow slower than pool per instance. So memory
consumption will be less.
>> As for limit size, based on max threads number - not sure it's
>> right solution. These values are completely independent, or I
>> missed something?
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + + /**
>>>>>> + * Sets the underlying selection key of the output channel.
>>>>>> + * @param selectionKey the underlying selection key of the
>>>>>> output channel.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + public void setSelectionKey(SelectionKey selectionKey) {
>>>>>> + this.selectionKey = selectionKey;
>>>>>> + channel = selectionKey.channel();
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>> setChannel() is always invoked by DefaultProcessorTask
>> Now it invokes setSelectionKey(), cause we need it for async write.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> @@ -278,4 +507,20 @@
>>>>>> public static void setMaxBufferedBytes(int aMaxBufferedBytes) {
>>>>>> maxBufferedBytes = aMaxBufferedBytes;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + public static void setMaxBufferPoolSize(int size) {
>>>>>> + int poolSize = (size >= 0) ? size :
>>>>>> DEFAULT_BUFFER_POOL_SIZE;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (maxBufferPoolSize == poolSize) return;
>>>>>> + + maxBufferPoolSize = poolSize;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + bufferPool = new
>>>>>> ArrayBlockingQueue<ByteBuffer>(maxBufferPoolSize);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> Hum I don't like set method that does works :-) Can we change
>>>>> the name to ajustMaxBufferPoolSize()?
>> Hmm, and what is the difference? :))
>
> just working. Usually when invoking setXXX, you just the value
> without logic. Just cosmetics
ok.
Thanks.
WBR,
Alexey.
>
>
> A+
>
> -- Jeanfrancois
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>