On 11/6/13 8:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep > benchs on a real app) it does worth it
Commons pool2 uses pretty lightweight locking and using a pool of instances achieves the basic objective of reducing contention for the single sync lock on one SummaryStatistics object. I bet it would improve throughput over the single-instance approach if maxActive, maxIdle were tuned. If I get some time to play with this, I will report back with some benchmarks. Phil > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: >> On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >>> Hehe, right. >>> >>> I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the >>> solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to >>> previous values (N -> N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as >>> important as I thought :(. >> Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of >> instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated >> is a good one. See below. >>> As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks >>> I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. >>> >>> Thanks in all cases for your answers! >> A workaround that I have started playing with (partly for other >> benchmarking reasons) might be to actually use a pool for the stats >> objects that the monitoring threads use. Using a pool would allow >> you to monitor and tune the parameters. We now have (well, once the >> VOTE in progress completes :) a decently performing pool >> implementation. The tricky bit is locking the instances during >> aggregation. One way to handle this would be to have the factory's >> passivate method and the aggregation thread contend for locks on the >> pooled stats instances. The only contention would be when >> aggregation is copying individual instances and contention would be >> with at most one client thread (waiting to proceed in passivate). >> >> Phil >>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/11/5 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: >>>> On 11/5/13 9:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >>>>> @Phil: hmm can be but the framework would create its own overhead which >>>>> would be avoided with a dedicated solution, no? Well thought gain was >>>>> great >>>>> for small investment but ok to postpone it >>>> As I said, patches welcome. Go for it. My point about the >>>> framework was that when you actually get this implemented inside, >>>> e.g. SummaryStatistics, you will have built a mini-framework. >>>> Whatever overhead it has, it will have ;) >>>> >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> >>>>> Le 5 nov. 2013 18:54, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a >>>>> écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> Well I didnt test sirona in prod but when using jamon (same kind of >>>>>> framework) locks were creating a serious overhead on some benches. Not >>>>>> the >>>>>> most important but enough to try to solve it. >>>>>> >>>>>> That said we are not yet in 1.0 so Im ok to wait for more serious >>>>>> feedbacks if you think it is better >>>>>> Le 5 nov. 2013 18:48, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>>>> <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough to >>>>>>> be an >>>>>>>> issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. >>>>>>>> Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That isn't what I meant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you really think that more than one metric has to update >>>>>>> (increment, >>>>>>>>> say) at precisely the same time? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I realize that is what you said. Do you have any serious examples where >>>>>>> metrics have to be updated all or nothing? >>>>>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
