>This one is tricky... The Linux kernel has some thread controls... so >the writing has to be done through a single thread... context switch >would make some extra IO on disks and performance would suffer...
Yes, you're right,sorry I've missed some context :P I mean a configuration like this: clients that ned to append to the journal --[APPEND REQUESTS QUEUE]--> journal appender (poll the requests) that uses the SequentialFile implementation The Journal appender will be single threaded and would use the chosen SequentialFile (as it is) implementation, draining from the append requests queue the requests to write into the journal and batching when necessary if it will help to improve the performance (coalescing the flushes). The same could be done on the InVM/NettyConnection too: the thread that is responsible to batch the writes to the sockets could receive its requests from a queue without any further need to allocate new buffers every time... My other concern here is how Netty could behave... -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-OutOfDirectMemory-on-high-memory-pressure-4-NettyConnection-tp4722964p4723157.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
