Great! Btw not sure for sirona we oculd use it. One constraint on sirona-core is to stay self contained. We already shade math3 so shading pool2 too would start to create a big jar for this need. I'll try to bench deeper next week too. 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 11/6/13 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
