hmmm.. I think you may have mis-understood me (or maybe I'm
mis-understanding you).
I was thinking of prototyping:
ArrayList items = new ArrayList();
byte[] data = new byte[ bufferSize ];
while( socket.Read( data ) ){
items.Add( data );
}
Obviously this is rough pseduo code, but I'm looking at adding byte arrays
to the ArrayList, not individual bytes.
Cheers!
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "gregory young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM>
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] trim byte array
> An arraylist containing bytes would have far worse performance (it also
does
> doubling internally except now you would be dealing with references
instead
> of of single bytes). A List<byte> also will do doubling internally (if you
> don't set it large enough initially) but will do it dealing with a byte []
> internally (a memorystream will work in a similar fashion). If you require
> fast random access this would probably be the fastest. Another problem
will
> exist in that you would be dealing with large objects (they get garbage
> colelcted differently) and this can actually open a DOS attack.
>
> The best long term solution is probably to make smaller byte arrays and
link
> them together. This would be extremely good if you are not changing data
but
> simply appending to it. So instead of managing an array that is 100 mb you
> hand 2000 smaller arrays.
>
> Think for a minute about having an array chunks .. each chunk is n bytes
so
> ...
>
> byte [][] chunks
>
> You could calculate locations rather easily .. chunk = n / chunksize then
> offset = a modulus n % chunksize. This would allow you to continue adding
> items without ever having full copy operations. I think someone has
already
> mentioned a similar strategy but this is the way to go. If you ran out of
> initial chunks, you could easily resize this array (copying 1000-2000
items
> as opposed to 10000000)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg
>
>
> On 7/6/06, dave wanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Erick,
> > hmm... this is interesting.
> >
> > I wouldn't have to worry about constantly expanding the byte array, and
in
> > this case I don't need to worry about accessing any internal bytes, just
> > the
> > end of the overall byte array to check for terminating characters.
> >
> > (thinking out loud)
> > I wonder if even something quick and dirty of an ArrayList of byte
arrays
> > would work? Simply as a quick prototype?
> >
> > Cheers!
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Erick Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 3:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] trim byte array
> >
> >
> > > It's the copy that gets pricey, which is going to be hard to avoid in
> > this
> > situation. A list just won't cut it with this size. I would suggest a
new
> > class that uses a list of byte[], and then uses the length of the
internal
> > byte array to determine the right array to touch in the indexer. I have
to
> > head out of the office, but I could throw together some code later if
you
> > need me to. It makes random access slower, but then you don't need to
ever
> > copy the data until the final step when you spit out the array, which
> > should
> > speed it up a lot.
> > >
> > > Erick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics.
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > > > gregory young
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:00 PM
> > > > To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] trim byte array
> > > >
> > > > Dave this is how list<byte> would work as well ... you can
> > > > however set an initial size if you know it to avoid these doublings.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Greg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/6/06, dave wanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > btw, just fyi...if you Reflector a MemoryStream, it doubles it's
> > > > > internal buffer every time it exceeds it's length.
> > > > >
> > > > > The MemoryStream is really clean from a programmatic
> > > > standpoint, it's
> > > > > just not the performance I really want.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for all the suggestions guys! I really appreciate it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers!
> > > > > Dave
> > > > >
> > > > > ===================================
> > > > > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor http://www.develop.com
> > > > >
> > > > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > > > > http://discuss.develop.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance
> > > > that we can solve them.
> > > >
> > > > Isaac Asimov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ===================================
> > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor� http://www.develop.com
> >
> > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > http://discuss.develop.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
> solve them.
>
> Isaac Asimov
>
===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor� http://www.develop.com
View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
