It seems the Feeder is highly recommended but not mandatory so I tried
without.
With my existing code it seems there is a synchronization problem.
The feeding threads get locked to the prematureFeed.get();
So the Grizzly kernel threads are unable to acquire the lock required to
enter the initializeAsynchronousTransfer method
Will try with an implementation of Feeder
2013/9/10 Sébastien Lorber <lorber.sebastien_at_gmail.com>
> Hmmm it seems I have a problem with one of your maven plugins. I'll try to
> bypass it, but for info:
>
> ➜ ahc2 git:(ahc-1.7.x) mvn clean install
> [WARNING]
> [WARNING] Some problems were encountered while building the effective
> settings
> [WARNING] 'profiles.profile[default].repositories.repository.id' must be
> unique but found duplicate repository with id fullsix-maven-repository @
> /home/slorber/.m2/settings.xml
> [WARNING]
> [INFO] Scanning for projects...
> [INFO]
>
> [INFO]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] Building Asynchronous Http Client 1.7.20-SNAPSHOT
> [INFO]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO]
> [INFO] --- maven-clean-plugin:2.4.1:clean (default-clean) @
> async-http-client ---
> [INFO]
> [INFO] --- maven-enforcer-plugin:1.0-beta-1:enforce (enforce-maven) @
> async-http-client ---
> [INFO]
> [INFO] --- maven-enforcer-plugin:1.0-beta-1:enforce (enforce-versions) @
> async-http-client ---
> [INFO]
> [INFO] --- maven-resources-plugin:2.4.3:resources (default-resources) @
> async-http-client ---
> [INFO] Using 'UTF-8' encoding to copy filtered resources.
> [INFO] skip non existing resourceDirectory
> /home/slorber/Bureau/ahc2/src/main/resources
> [INFO]
> [INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:2.3.2:compile (default-compile) @
> async-http-client ---
> [INFO] Compiling 158 source files to
> /home/slorber/Bureau/ahc2/target/classes
> [INFO]
> *[INFO] --- animal-sniffer-maven-plugin:1.6:check (check-java-1.5-compat)
> @ async-http-client ---*
> *[INFO] Checking unresolved references to
> org.codehaus.mojo.signature:java15:1.0*
> *[ERROR] Undefined reference:
> java/io/IOException.<init>(Ljava/lang/Throwable;)V in
> /home/slorber/Bureau/ahc2/target/classes/com/ning/http/client/providers/grizzly/FeedableBodyGenerator.class
> *
> [INFO]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] BUILD FAILURE
> [INFO]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] Total time: 8.747s
> [INFO] Finished at: Tue Sep 10 11:25:41 CEST 2013
> [INFO] Final Memory: 30M/453M
> [INFO]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *[ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> org.codehaus.mojo:animal-sniffer-maven-plugin:1.6:check
> (check-java-1.5-compat) on project async-http-client: Signature errors
> found. Verify them and put @IgnoreJRERequirement on them. -> [Help 1]*
> [ERROR]
> [ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the
> -e switch.
> [ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging.
> [ERROR]
> [ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions,
> please read the following articles:
> [ERROR] [Help 1]
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/MojoFailureException
>
>
>
> 2013/9/10 Sébastien Lorber <lorber.sebastien_at_gmail.com>
>
>> Ok thank you, I'll try to implement that today and will give you my
>> feedback :)
>>
>>
>> 2013/9/10 Ryan Lubke <ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com>
>>
>>> Okay,
>>>
>>> I've committed my initial changes to the AHC repository. Here's a
>>> summary of the changes:
>>>
>>>
>>> *Improvements to the FeedableBodyGenerator (Grizzly's).
>>> - Don't allow queueing of data before initiateAsyncTransfer has been
>>> invoked. In low memory
>>> heaps, this could lead to an OOM if the source is feeding too fast. The
>>> new behavior is to
>>> block until initiateAsyncTransfer is called, at which time the blocked
>>> thread may proceed with
>>> the feed operation.
>>> - Introduce the concept of a Feeder. Implementations are responsible, at
>>> a high level, for:
>>> + letting the provider know that data is available to be fed without
>>> blocking
>>> + allowing the registration of a callback that the Feeder implementation
>>> may invoke
>>> to signal that more data is available, if it wasn't available at a
>>> previous point in time.
>>> - When using a Feeder with a secure request, the SSL handshake will be
>>> kicked off by the
>>> initiateAsyncTransfer call, but feeding of data will not occur until the
>>> handshake is complete.
>>> This is necessary as the SSLFilter will queue up all writes until the
>>> handshake is complete,
>>> and currently, the buffer isn't tied in with the transport flow control
>>> mechanism.
>>> NOTE: This new SSL behavior is not currently applied when invoking the
>>> feed() method
>>> outside the context of a Feeder. Still need to address that.
>>> - Exposed configuration of the async write queue limit through the
>>> FeedableBodyGenerator.
>>> This is an improvement on using a TransportCustomizer as any
>>> configuration there is
>>> transport-wide, and therefor applied to all Connections. By exposing it
>>> here, each feeder
>>> may have a different byte limit.
>>> - Improved documentation for this class*
>>>
>>> I recommend reading through the javadoc comments in the source [1] for
>>> FeedableBodyGenerator (comments welcome).
>>> Additionally, I would re-work your code to leverage the Feeder instead
>>> of calling feed() directly.
>>>
>>> If you have issues implementing Feeder, do let us know.
>>>
>>> If you have additional questions, again, let us know.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -rl
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://github.com/AsyncHttpClient/async-http-client/blob/ahc-1.7.x/src/main/java/com/ning/http/client/providers/grizzly/FeedableBodyGenerator.java
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ryan Lubke wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sébastien Lorber wrote:
>>>
>>> So in the end I've end up with an implementation that's working for me.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think there are 2 bugs:
>>>
>>> 1) The bytes can accumulate in the FeedableBodyGenerator queue if the
>>> initialize(ctx) method is not called fast enough.
>>> This can be solved by using a BlockingQueue of size 1 and the put()
>>> method.
>>>
>>> 2) Once the context is injected, the FeedableBodyGenerator flushes the
>>> queue.
>>> The matter is that if the connection is new, not warmed up by a previous
>>> request, then the SSL handshake is not done yet, and it seems that the
>>> bytes are accumulated in some part of the SSL filter which doesn't deliver
>>> them to the connection until the handshake has completed, so c.canWrite()
>>> continues to return true.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have replaced some part of the FeedableBodyGenerator to test this and
>>> it works pretty fine. See what I have changed:
>>>
>>> 1)
>>> private final BlockingQueue<BodyPart> queue = new
>>> LinkedBlockingQueue<BodyPart>(1);
>>>
>>>
>>> 2)
>>> public void feed(final Buffer buffer, final boolean last) throws
>>> IOException {
>>> try {
>>> queue.put(new BodyPart(buffer, last));
>>> } catch (InterruptedException e) {
>>> throw new RuntimeException(e);
>>> }
>>> queueSize.incrementAndGet();
>>>
>>> if (context != null) {
>>> blockUntilConnectionIsReadyToWrite(context);
>>> flushQueue(true);
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> private void blockUntilConnectionIsReadyToWrite(FilterChainContext
>>> fcc) {
>>> if ( !connectionIsReadyToWrite(fcc) ) {
>>> while ( !connectionIsReadyToWrite(fcc) ) {
>>> try { Thread.sleep(10); } catch ( Exception e ) { throw new
>>> RuntimeException(e); }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> private boolean connectionIsReadyToWrite(FilterChainContext fcc) {
>>> Connection connection = fcc.getConnection();
>>> SSLEngine sslEngine = SSLUtils.getSSLEngine(connection);
>>> return sslEngine != null && !SSLUtils.isHandshaking(sslEngine);
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>> We had come to similar conclusions on this end. I'm still working
>>> through testing the idea I mentioned previously (took longer than I
>>> expected - sorry).
>>> I hope to have something for you to test very soon.
>>>
>>> Note that it will be taking the above into account as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/9/5 Sébastien Lorber <lorber.sebastien_at_gmail.com>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have tried to put a while ( context == null ) Thread.sleep but it
>>>> doesn't seem to work, when the context gets injected, after the sleeps,
>>>> there's an OOM
>>>>
>>>> So I hope you'll have more success with your alternative :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have done another test, remember my code that worked, which
>>>> previously "warmed" the Thread with an useless request.
>>>>
>>>> private Runnable uploadSingleDocumentRunnable = new Runnable() {
>>>> @Override
>>>> public void run() {
>>>> try {
>>>> getUselessSessionCode();
>>>> Thread.sleep(X);
>>>> uploadSingleDocument();
>>>> } catch ( Exception e ) {
>>>> throw new RuntimeException("file upload failed",e);
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> I have put a sleep of X between the useless warmup request, and the
>>>> real upload request
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I noticed is that there is a very different behavior according to
>>>> the value of X
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Under 10 seconds, it seems the stuff is still warm, I can upload the
>>>> documents.
>>>> Around 10 seconds I get a stack which seems to be "connection closed"
>>>> or something
>>>> Above 10 seconds, I get OOM like if the stuff wasn't warm.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The stacks I get for 10 seconds looks like
>>>>
>>>> Caused by: javax.net.ssl.SSLException: SSLEngine is CLOSED
>>>> at
>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLConnectionContext.wrap(SSLConnectionContext.java:295)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at
>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLConnectionContext.wrapAll(SSLConnectionContext.java:238)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at
>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLBaseFilter.wrapAll(SSLBaseFilter.java:405)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at
>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLBaseFilter.handleWrite(SSLBaseFilter.java:320)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at
>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLFilter.accurateWrite(SSLFilter.java:255)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLFilter.handleWrite(SSLFilter.java:143)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at
>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider$SwitchingSSLFilter.handleWrite(GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider.java:2500)
>>>> ~[async-http-client-1.7.20-SNAPSHOT.jar:na]
>>>> at
>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.ExecutorResolver$8.execute(ExecutorResolver.java:111)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at
>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.executeFilter(DefaultFilterChain.java:288)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at
>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.executeChainPart(DefaultFilterChain.java:206)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at
>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.execute(DefaultFilterChain.java:136)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at
>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.process(DefaultFilterChain.java:114)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at
>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ProcessorExecutor.execute(ProcessorExecutor.java:77)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at
>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.FilterChainContext.write(FilterChainContext.java:853)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at
>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.FilterChainContext.write(FilterChainContext.java:720)
>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>> at
>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.FeedableBodyGenerator.flushQueue(FeedableBodyGenerator.java:133)
>>>> ~[async-http-client-1.7.20-SNAPSHOT.jar:na]
>>>> at
>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.FeedableBodyGenerator.feed(FeedableBodyGenerator.java:95)
>>>> ~[async-http-client-1.7.20-SNAPSHOT.jar:na]
>>>>
>>>> I think I got some other different stacks saying Connection Closed
>>>> Remotely or something like that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So it seems that something is bound to my thread, and it stays bound to
>>>> it for about 10 seconds, do you have any idea what it could be?
>>>> (My connection timeout setting seems to have no effect on this 10s
>>>> threshold)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/9/5 Ryan Lubke <ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com>
>>>>
>>>>> That is one solution. I'm working out an alternative right now. Stay
>>>>> tuned!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway it's not a problem, I think the FeedableBodyGenerator.feed()
>>>>> method just has to block until a context has been (and ThreadCache
>>>>> initialized) to avoid OOM errors
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/9/5 Sébastien Lorber <lorber.sebastien_at_gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is very strange is that I tested with/without the same
>>>>>> sessionCode with our previous code, the one not using
>>>>>> FeedableBodyGenerator, which has a high memory consumption.
>>>>>> Despites the fact it had high memory consumption, it seems work fine
>>>>>> to upload multiple documents if allocated with a large heap, and the
>>>>>> sessionCode seems to have no effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the new impl using the FeedableBodyGenerator, the sessionCode sent
>>>>>> as a multipart bodypart seems to have an effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have tried to feed the queue before sending the request to AHC, but
>>>>>> this leads to this exception (with/without sessionCode switching)
>>>>>> Caused by: java.util.concurrent.TimeoutException: Timeout exceeded
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider.timeout(GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider.java:528)
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider$3.onTimeout(GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider.java:361)
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.utils.IdleTimeoutFilter$DefaultWorker.doWork(IdleTimeoutFilter.java:383)
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.utils.IdleTimeoutFilter$DefaultWorker.doWork(IdleTimeoutFilter.java:362)
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.utils.DelayedExecutor$DelayedRunnable.run(DelayedExecutor.java:158)
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1110)
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:603)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2013/9/5 Sébastien Lorber <lorber.sebastien_at_gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way, by using a low timeout with the same sessioncode, I got
>>>>>>> the following NPE:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.FeedableBodyGenerator.block(FeedableBodyGenerator.java:184)
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.FeedableBodyGenerator.blockUntilQueueFree(FeedableBodyGenerator.java:167)
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.FeedableBodyGenerator.flushQueue(FeedableBodyGenerator.java:124)
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.FeedableBodyGenerator.feed(FeedableBodyGenerator.java:94)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider.HttpTransactionContext httpCtx =
>>>>>>> getHttpTransactionContext(c);
>>>>>>> httpCtx.abort(e.getCause());
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess the httpCtx is not already available to be aborted
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2013/9/5 Sébastien Lorber <lorber.sebastien_at_gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is right, here's a log I have when I use the same session
>>>>>>>> code, ie the remote host is blocking the data or something.
>>>>>>>> This is obtained by running 5 parallel uploads.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Flushing queue of size 0 with allowBlocking = false*
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> *Flushing queue of size 97 with allowBlocking = false*
>>>>>>>> *Flushing queue of size 100 with allowBlocking = false*
>>>>>>>> *Flushing queue of size 160 with allowBlocking = true*
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 0 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: GC overhead limit exceeded
>>>>>>>> Dumping heap to /ome/lorber/ureau/om ...
>>>>>>>> Unable to create /ome/lorber/ureau/om: Le fichier existe
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Disconnected from the target VM, address: '127.0.0.1:49268',
>>>>>>>> transport: 'socket'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Otherwise, with different session codes, I get the following:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Flushing queue of size 0 with allowBlocking = false*
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> *Flushing queue of size 0 with allowBlocking = false*
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> *Flushing queue of size 0 with allowBlocking = false*
>>>>>>>> *Flushing queue of size 0 with allowBlocking = false*
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> Flushing queue of size 1 with allowBlocking = true
>>>>>>>> ... and this continues without OOM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, this seems to be the problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it would be great to be able to be able to choose the queue
>>>>>>>> impl behind that FeedableBodyGenerator, like I suggested in my pull request.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/slorber/async-http-client/blob/79b0c3b28a61b0aa4c4b055bca8f6be11d9ed1e6/src/main/java/com/ning/http/client/providers/grizzly/FeedableBodyGenerator.java
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Using a LinkedBlockingQueue seems to be a nice idea in this
>>>>>>>> context, and in my case I would probably use a queue of size 1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This would handle the blocking of the feed method, without having
>>>>>>>> to use this:
>>>>>>>> if (context != null) {
>>>>>>>> flushQueue(true);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or perhaps the feed() method have to wait until a context is set in
>>>>>>>> the BodyGenerator ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it would be more clear if
>>>>>>>> the initializeAsynchronousTransfer simply didn't flush the queue but just
>>>>>>>> setup the context.
>>>>>>>> Then the feed method would block until there's a context set, and
>>>>>>>> then flush the queue with blocking behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is probably the next step, but as we are using AHC for async,
>>>>>>>> it would probably be great if that blocking feed() method was called in a
>>>>>>>> worker thread instead of our main thread.
>>>>>>>> I won't use this but someone who really wants a non-blocking impl
>>>>>>>> of performant multipart fileupload would probably need this, or will use an
>>>>>>>> ExecutorService for the feeding operations as a workaround.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks again for your reactivity
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2013/9/4 Ryan Lubke <ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sébastien Lorber wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've integrated this change and it works fine except a little
>>>>>>>>> detail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm uploading files to a third party API (a bit like S3).
>>>>>>>>> This API requires a "sessionCode" in each request. So there is a
>>>>>>>>> multipart StringPart with that SessionCode.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We used to have a cache which holds the sessionCode 30min per user
>>>>>>>>> so that we do not need to init a new session each time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I had troubles in this very specific case: when I upload 5 docs
>>>>>>>>> with the same session code.
>>>>>>>>> When I remove the cache and use 5 different session codes, it
>>>>>>>>> works fine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I guess the remote service is blocking concurrent uploads with the
>>>>>>>>> same session code. I don't know at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where I want to go is that I wouldn't have expected Grizzly to OOM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Avertissement: Exception during FilterChain execution
>>>>>>>>> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
>>>>>>>>> at java.nio.HeapByteBuffer.<init>(HeapByteBuffer.java:57)
>>>>>>>>> at java.nio.ByteBuffer.allocate(ByteBuffer.java:331)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLUtils.allocateOutputBuffer(SSLUtils.java:342)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLBaseFilter$2.grow(SSLBaseFilter.java:117)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLConnectionContext.ensureBufferSize(SSLConnectionContext.java:392)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLConnectionContext.wrap(SSLConnectionContext.java:272)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLConnectionContext.wrapAll(SSLConnectionContext.java:238)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLBaseFilter.wrapAll(SSLBaseFilter.java:405)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLBaseFilter.handleWrite(SSLBaseFilter.java:320)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLFilter.accurateWrite(SSLFilter.java:263)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLFilter.handleWrite(SSLFilter.java:143)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider$SwitchingSSLFilter.handleWrite(GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider.java:2500)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.ExecutorResolver$8.execute(ExecutorResolver.java:111)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.executeFilter(DefaultFilterChain.java:288)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.executeChainPart(DefaultFilterChain.java:206)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.execute(DefaultFilterChain.java:136)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.process(DefaultFilterChain.java:114)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ProcessorExecutor.execute(ProcessorExecutor.java:77)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.FilterChainContext$1.run(FilterChainContext.java:196)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.FilterChainContext.resume(FilterChainContext.java:220)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLFilter$SSLHandshakeContext.completed(SSLFilter.java:383)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLFilter.notifyHandshakeComplete(SSLFilter.java:278)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLBaseFilter.handleRead(SSLBaseFilter.java:275)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider$SwitchingSSLFilter.handleRead(GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider.java:2490)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.ExecutorResolver$9.execute(ExecutorResolver.java:119)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.executeFilter(DefaultFilterChain.java:288)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.executeChainPart(DefaultFilterChain.java:206)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.execute(DefaultFilterChain.java:136)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.process(DefaultFilterChain.java:114)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ProcessorExecutor.execute(ProcessorExecutor.java:77)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.nio.transport.TCPNIOTransport.fireIOEvent(TCPNIOTransport.java:546)
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.strategies.AbstractIOStrategy.fireIOEvent(AbstractIOStrategy.java:113)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Caused by: java.util.concurrent.TimeoutException: null
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.impl.SafeFutureImpl$Sync.innerGet(SafeFutureImpl.java:367)
>>>>>>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.impl.SafeFutureImpl.get(SafeFutureImpl.java:274)
>>>>>>>>> ~[grizzly-framework-2.3.5.jar:2.3.5]
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.FeedableBodyGenerator.block(FeedableBodyGenerator.java:177)
>>>>>>>>> ~[async-http-client-1.7.20-204092c.jar:na]
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.FeedableBodyGenerator.blockUntilQueueFree(FeedableBodyGenerator.java:167)
>>>>>>>>> ~[async-http-client-1.7.20-204092c.jar:na]
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.FeedableBodyGenerator.flushQueue(FeedableBodyGenerator.java:124)
>>>>>>>>> ~[async-http-client-1.7.20-204092c.jar:na]
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.FeedableBodyGenerator.feed(FeedableBodyGenerator.java:94)
>>>>>>>>> ~[async-http-client-1.7.20-204092c.jar:na]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> multipart.body.generator.feeder.buffer=100000 -> size of each
>>>>>>>>> Buffer sent to the FeedableBodyGenerator
>>>>>>>>> transport.max.pending.bytes=1000000
>>>>>>>>> (I tried other settings, including AUTO_SIZE)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any idea why is there an OOM with these settings?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it is because the feed() method of FeedableBodyGenerator
>>>>>>>>> doesn't block until the context is initialized.
>>>>>>>>> I guess the initializeAsynchronousTransfer is called only once the
>>>>>>>>> connection is established, and perhaps a lot of Buffer are added to the
>>>>>>>>> queue...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's invoked once the request has been dispatched, so if the
>>>>>>>>> generator is fed a lot before the request, I could see this happening.
>>>>>>>>> I'll see what I can do to alleviate that case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I'm not sure at all because the session code is transmitted as
>>>>>>>>> a BodyPart and I get the same problem if i put it as the first or last
>>>>>>>>> multipart.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not a big deal, perhaps I should always use a different
>>>>>>>>> session code for concurrent operations but I'd like to be sure that we
>>>>>>>>> won't have this issue in production...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2013/9/3 Ryan Lubke <ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Good catch. Fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sébastien Lorber wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There's a little mistake in the grizzly ahc provider relative to
>>>>>>>>>> the write queue size.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/AsyncHttpClient/async-http-client/blob/b5d97efe9fe14113ea92fb1f7db192a2d090fad7/src/main/java/com/ning/http/client/providers/grizzly/GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider.java#L419
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As you can see, the TransportCustomizer is called, and then the
>>>>>>>>>> write queue size (among other things) is set to AUTO_SIZE (instead of
>>>>>>>>>> previously UNLIMITED)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> clientTransport.getAsyncQueueIO().getWriter()
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> .setMaxPendingBytesPerConnection(AsyncQueueWriter.AUTO_SIZE);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think the default settings like this AUTO_SIZE attribute should
>>>>>>>>>> be set before the customization of the transport, or they would override
>>>>>>>>>> the value we customized.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is actually my case, since I can't reproduce my "bug" which
>>>>>>>>>> is "high memory consumption", even when using -1 / UNLIMITED in the
>>>>>>>>>> TransportCustomizer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This could work fine for me with AUTO_SIZE, but I'd rather be
>>>>>>>>>> able to tune this parameter during load tests to see the effect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2013/8/31 Sebastien Lorber <lorber.sebastien_at_gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks i will ckeck that on monday. I can now upload a 500m file
>>>>>>>>>>> with 40m heap size ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Le 30 août 2013 à 20:49, Ryan Lubke <ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com> a
>>>>>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm going to be updating the Grizzly provider such that
>>>>>>>>>>> AUTO_SIZE (not AUTO_TUNE) is the default, so you can avoid the use of the
>>>>>>>>>>> TransportCustomizer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ryan Lubke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding your tuning question, I would probably set the value
>>>>>>>>>>> to AsyncQueueWriter.AUTO_TUNE (this will be four times the socket write
>>>>>>>>>>> buffer) and see how that works.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ryan Lubke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A question first. With these changes, your memory usage is more
>>>>>>>>>>> inline with what you were looking for?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sébastien Lorber wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, do you have any idea when the 1.7.20 will be
>>>>>>>>>>> released (with these new improvements?)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We would like to know if we wait for a release or if we install
>>>>>>>>>>> our own temp release on Nexus :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/8/30 Sébastien Lorber <lorber.sebastien_at_gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, it works fine!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I just had to modify a single line after your commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider#initializeTransport
>>>>>>>>>>>> ->
>>>>>>>>>>>> clientTransport.getAsyncQueueIO().getWriter().setMaxPendingBytesPerConnection(10000);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I let the initial value (-1) it won't block, canWrite always
>>>>>>>>>>>> returns true
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, on AHC I didn't find any way to pass this value as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> config attribute, neither the size of the write buffer you talked about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So in the end, is there a way with current AHC code to use this
>>>>>>>>>>>> "canWrite = false" behavior?
>>>>>>>>>>>> If not, can you please provide a way to set this behavior on
>>>>>>>>>>>> v1.7.20 ? thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: does it make sens to use the same number of bytes un the
>>>>>>>>>>>> feed(Buffer) method and in the setMaxPendingBytesPerConnection(10000);
>>>>>>>>>>>> ? do you have any tuning recommandation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/8/29 Ryan Lubke <ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please disregard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryan Lubke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sébastien,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you also provide a sample of how you're performing your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -rl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryan Lubke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sébastien,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd recommend looking at Connection.canWrite() [1] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Connection.notifyCanWrite(WriteListener) [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By default, Grizzly will configure the async write queue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> length to be four times the write buffer size (which is based off the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> socket write buffer).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this queue exceeds this value, canWrite() will return
>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this occurs, you can register a WriteListener to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> notified when the queue length is below the configured max and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate blocking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> until the onWritePossible() callback has been invoked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> final FutureImpl<Boolean> future =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Futures.createSafeFuture();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Connection may be obtained by calling
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FilterChainContext.getConnection().
>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection.notifyCanWrite(new WriteHandler() {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override
>>>>>>>>>>>>> public void onWritePossible() throws Exception {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.result(Boolean.TRUE);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override
>>>>>>>>>>>>> public void onError(Throwable t) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.failure(Exceptions.makeIOException(t));
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> });
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> try {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> final long writeTimeout = 30;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.get(writeTimeout, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> } catch (ExecutionException e) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HttpTransactionContext httpCtx =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HttpTransactionContext.get(connection);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> httpCtx.abort(e.getCause());
>>>>>>>>>>>>> } catch (Exception e) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HttpTransactionContext httpCtx =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HttpTransactionContext.get(connection);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> httpCtx.abort(e);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://grizzly.java.net/docs/2.3/apidocs/org/glassfish/grizzly/OutputSink.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sébastien Lorber wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryan, I've did some other tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that using a blocking queue in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FeedableBodyGenerator is totally useless because the thread consuming it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not blocking and the queue never blocks the feeding, which was my intention
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the beginning. Maybe it depends on the IO strategy used?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use AHC default which seems to use SameThreadIOStrategy so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't think it's related to the IO strategy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in the end I can upload a 70m file with a heap of 50m, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have to put a Thread.sleep(30) between each 100k Buffer send to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FeedableBodyGenerator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The connection with the server is not good here, but in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> production it is normally a lot better as far as I know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried things
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like clientTransport.getAsyncQueueIO().getWriter().setMaxPendingBytesPerConnection(100000);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it doesn't seem to work for me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like the Grizzly internals to block when there are too
>>>>>>>>>>>>> much pending bytes to send. Is it possible?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: I've just been able to send a 500mo file with 100mo heap,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it needed a sleep of 100ms between each 100k Buffer sent to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bodygenerator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/8/29 Sébastien Lorber <lorber.sebastien_at_gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By chance do you if I can remove the MessageCloner used in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the SSL filter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SSLBaseFilter$OnWriteCopyCloner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to allocate a lot of memory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really understand why messages have to be cloned, can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I remove this? How?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/8/29 Sébastien Lorber <lorber.sebastien_at_gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to send a 500m file for my tests with a heap of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 400m.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In our real use cases we would probably have files under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20mo but we want to reduce the memory consumption because we can have x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parallel uploads on the same server according to the user activity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try to check if using this BodyGenerator reduced the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory footprint or if it's almost like before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/8/28 Ryan Lubke <ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point in time, as far as the SSL buffer allocation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is concerned, it's untunable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, feel free to open a feature request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As to your second question, there is no suggested size.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is all very application specific.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm curious, how large of a file are you sending?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sébastien Lorber wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have seen a lot of buffers which have a size of 33842 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it seems the limit is near half the capacity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps there's a way to tune that buffer size so that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumes less memory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there an ideal Buffer size to send to the feed method?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/8/28 Ryan Lubke <ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be reviewing the PR today, thanks again!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the OOM: as it stands now, for each new buffer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is passed to the SSLFilter, we allocate a buffer twice the size in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accommodate the encrypted result. So there's an increase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depending on the socket configurations of both endpoints,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and how fast the remote is reading data, it could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be the write queue is becoming too large. We do have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to detect this situation, but I'm pretty sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Grizzly internals are currently shielded here. I will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see what I can do to allow users to leverage this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sébastien Lorber wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've made my pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/AsyncHttpClient/async-http-client/pull/367
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With my usecase it works, the file is uploaded like before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I didn't notice a big memory improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it possible that SSL doesn't allow to stream the body
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or something like that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In memory, I have a lot of:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - HeapByteBuffer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which are hold by SSLUtils$3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which are hold by BufferBuffers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which are hold by WriteResult
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which are hold by AsyncWriteQueueRecord
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is an exemple of the OOM stacktrace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at java.nio.HeapByteBuffer.<init>(HeapByteBuffer.java:57)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at java.nio.ByteBuffer.allocate(ByteBuffer.java:331)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLUtils.allocateOutputBuffer(SSLUtils.java:342)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLBaseFilter$2.grow(SSLBaseFilter.java:117)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLConnectionContext.ensureBufferSize(SSLConnectionContext.java:392)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLConnectionContext.wrap(SSLConnectionContext.java:272)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLConnectionContext.wrapAll(SSLConnectionContext.java:227)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLBaseFilter.wrapAll(SSLBaseFilter.java:404)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLBaseFilter.handleWrite(SSLBaseFilter.java:319)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLFilter.accurateWrite(SSLFilter.java:255)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ssl.SSLFilter.handleWrite(SSLFilter.java:143)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider$SwitchingSSLFilter.handleWrite(GrizzlyAsyncHttpProvider.java:2503)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.ExecutorResolver$8.execute(ExecutorResolver.java:111)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.executeFilter(DefaultFilterChain.java:288)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.executeChainPart(DefaultFilterChain.java:206)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.execute(DefaultFilterChain.java:136)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.DefaultFilterChain.process(DefaultFilterChain.java:114)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.ProcessorExecutor.execute(ProcessorExecutor.java:77)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.FilterChainContext.write(FilterChainContext.java:853)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.glassfish.grizzly.filterchain.FilterChainContext.write(FilterChainContext.java:720)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.FeedableBodyGenerator.flushQueue(FeedableBodyGenerator.java:132)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.FeedableBodyGenerator.feed(FeedableBodyGenerator.java:101)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.MultipartBodyGeneratorFeeder$FeedBodyGeneratorOutputStream.write(MultipartBodyGeneratorFeeder.java:222)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.io.BufferedOutputStream.flushBuffer(BufferedOutputStream.java:82)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.io.BufferedOutputStream.write(BufferedOutputStream.java:126)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> com.ning.http.multipart.FilePart.sendData(FilePart.java:179)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at com.ning.http.multipart.Part.send(Part.java:331)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at com.ning.http.multipart.Part.sendParts(Part.java:397)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> com.ning.http.client.providers.grizzly.MultipartBodyGeneratorFeeder.feed(MultipartBodyGeneratorFeeder.java:144)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any idea?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/8/27 Ryan Lubke <ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excellent! Looking forward to the pull request!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sébastien Lorber wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryan thanks, it works fine, I'll make a pull request on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AHC tomorrow with a better code using the same Part classes that already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I created an OutputStream that redirects to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BodyGenerator feeder.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem I currently have is that the feeder feeds the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queue faster than the async thread polling it :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I need to expose a limit to that queue size or something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will work on that, it will be better than a thread sleep to slow down the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filepart reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/8/27 Ryan Lubke <ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, something like that. I was going to tackle adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like this today. I'll follow up with something you can test out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sébastien Lorber wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I see what I could do, probably something like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FeedableBodyGenerator bodyGenerator = new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FeedableBodyGenerator();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MultipartBodyGeneratorFeeder bodyGeneratorFeeder =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new MultipartBodyGeneratorFeeder(bodyGenerator);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Request uploadRequest1 = new RequestBuilder("POST")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setUrl("url")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setBody(bodyGenerator)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .build();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ListenableFuture<Response> asyncRes = asyncHttpClient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .prepareRequest(uploadRequest1)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .execute(new AsyncCompletionHandlerBase());
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bodyGeneratorFeeder.append("param1","value1");
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bodyGeneratorFeeder.append("param2","value2");
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bodyGeneratorFeeder.append("fileToUpload",fileInputStream);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bodyGeneratorFeeder.end();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Response uploadResponse = asyncRes.get();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it seem ok to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess it could be interesting to provide that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MultipartBodyGeneratorFeeder class to AHC or Grizzly since some other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people may want to achieve the same thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/8/26 Ryan Lubke <ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sébastien Lorber wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to know if it's possible to upload a file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with AHC / Grizzly in streaming, I mean without loading the whole file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytes in memory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The default behavior seems to allocate a byte[] which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contans the whole file, so it means that my server can be OOM if too many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users upload a large file in the same time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tryied with a Heap and ByteBuffer memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managers, with reallocate=true/false but no more success.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems the whole file content is appended wto the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BufferOutputStream, and then the underlying buffer is written.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least this seems to be the case with AHC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/AsyncHttpClient/async-http-client/blob/6faf1f316e5546110b0779a5a42fd9d03ba6bc15/providers/grizzly/src/main/java/org/asynchttpclient/providers/grizzly/bodyhandler/PartsBodyHandler.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, is there a way to patch AHC to stream the file so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I could eventually consume only 20mo of heap while uploading a 500mo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or is this simply impossible with Grizzly?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't notice anything related to that in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's possible with the FeedableBodyGenerator. But if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're tied to using Multipart uploads, you'd have to convert the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multipart data to Buffers manually and send using the FeedableBodyGenerator.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll take a closer look to see if this area can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Btw in my case it is a file upload. I receive a file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with CXF and have to transmit it to a storage server (like S3). CXF doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consume memory bevause it is streaming the large fle uploads to the file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system, and then provides an input stream on that file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>