Yes, we can make the disruptor optional. Also, we should try using the native worker pool for Event Handler[1], so that the Disruptor itself runs the event handler on a worker pool. We'll implement both approaches and do a comparison.
[1] https://lmax-exchange.github.io/disruptor/docs/com/lmax/disruptor/dsl/Disruptor.html#handleEventsWithWorkerPool(com.lmax.disruptor.WorkHandler.. .) On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Afkham Azeez <[email protected]> wrote: > After upgrading to the new transport, we are seeing a significant drop in > performance for any service that take some time to execute. We have tried > with the configuration used for the gateway which gave the best figures on > the same hardware. We have also noted that using a separate dedicated > executor thread pool, which is supported by Netty, gave much better > performance than the disruptor based implementation. Even in theory, > disruptor cannot give better performance when used with a real service that > does some real work, rather than doing passthrough, for example. Can we > improve the Netty transport to make going through disruptor optional? > > -- > *Afkham Azeez* > Director of Architecture; WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com > Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ > * <http://www.apache.org/>* > *email: **[email protected]* <[email protected]> > * cell: +94 77 3320919 <%2B94%2077%203320919>blog: * > *http://blog.afkham.org* <http://blog.afkham.org> > *twitter: **http://twitter.com/afkham_azeez* > <http://twitter.com/afkham_azeez> > *linked-in: **http://lk.linkedin.com/in/afkhamazeez > <http://lk.linkedin.com/in/afkhamazeez>* > > *Lean . Enterprise . Middleware* > -- Kasun Indrasiri Software Architect WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com lean.enterprise.middleware cell: +94 77 556 5206 Blog : http://kasunpanorama.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list [email protected] https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
