I was just looking over that. We'll get that for free won't we? because
the Controller itself calls that internally so we should be ok, no?
Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote:
> Salut,
>
> Justin Lee wrote:
>
>> That's actually what I thought when I read his email, too. Makes sense.
>> Should that formula be used in grizzly-config, too?
>>
>
> I would say yes. Look at Controller.autoConfigureCore() logic.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- Jeanfrancois
>
>
>
>> Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote:
>>
>>> Salut,
>>>
>>> Bongjae Chang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> When I tested TCP layer recently in grizzly, I met some problems of
>>>> Cotroller's initialization which had been not occurred before.
>>>>
>>>> Here is some examples
>>>> - ControllerStateListener's onReady() was not invoked in main Controller.
>>>> - When I tried to connect a tcp connection, maybe timeout was occurred
>>>> and I failed to send the packet to the remote server.
>>>> - etc...
>>>>
>>>> When I debugged this problem, I could know that this was the
>>>> side-effect of "Auto-configure the number of ReaderController based on
>>>> OS/Core or the machine" issue(svn rev.3088, issue #566).
>>>>
>>>> I could know that 4 ReaderControllers was initialized when I had tested
>>>> this on 4 CPUs. Before issue #566 was committed, ReaderController was
>>>> not used because default read-thread-count was 0.
>>>>
>>>> As you know, default thread pool is shared between main Controller and
>>>> ReaderController and default thread pool's core size and max size are 5.
>>>>
>>>> Then if gizzly is used on 3~4 more CPUs, I think that many tasks of
>>>> grizzly can not be executing but queueing in thread pool executor.
>>>>
>>>> So, I think that default thread pool size is not enough and default
>>>> size should also be configured automatically or at least warning message
>>>> should be logged if the minimum thread's number for initialization was
>>>> not guaranteed.
>>>>
>>>> When I tested this on my thread pool which had 11 core size and 11 max
>>>> size, I could confim no problems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Completely agree. I think the number of threads in that case should be
>>> core * default value. What do you think?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> -- Jeanfrancois
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bongjae Chang
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>
>