I was wrong using "recollect", I wanted to say:
"So, the non-written bytebuffers are no more put in a single big
bytebuffer before to send them to the SocketChannel?"
Because I remember a feature like that in the 0.8.0.
Tell me if I'm wrong, I think giving to the SocketChannel a big bytebuffer instead of many little buffers make it works better with the underling asynch IO. That's right?
 
I'm studing for exams now, as soon as I can I'll try to reproduce the strange cpu usage.
 
by Fedechicco
 
 
Fedechicco wrote:
 
Finally, I must to send many ( the usual number of 1000 ) little
pre-prepared bytebuffers, and I initially wrote them one-by-one, but my
tests went better (not good, but better) since I have done my own cicle that
put all the little buffers in one big buffer, and then write() only the big
bytebuffer.
So, the non-written bytebuffers are no more recollected in a single big
bytebuffer before to send them to the SocketChannel?
 
Trustin wrote:

What do you mean by 'recollected'?  Does it mean 'pooled'?  They (small buffers) are pooled if you call ByteBuffer.release() explicitly in case you didn't pass (write) them to MINA.

Reply via email to