Vova, I meant the copy on write. To know the length you need to fully marshal message first. This means that you will always copy the array before writing to channel. Unless I'm missing something, this eliminates the purpose of direct serialization.
-Val On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Valya, > > Yes, in this design we will copy data into separate buffer on read. But > what is important - it will happen only for message which is split between > buffers. > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 2:33 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Vladimir, > > > > We don't write length because be don't know it in advance. Sounds like > > you're proposing to marshal the message first and then copy it to the > write > > buffer. But that's actually our previous implementation and the whole > > purpose of direct serialization was to avoid this copy. > > > > The optimization for writes sounds interesting, though. > > > > -Val > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Writes can be optimized even further: > > > 1) Write to *ByteBuffer *as long as there is a place in it. > > > 2) When it is full - invoke a callback which will submit it to the > > socket, > > > reset position to 0, and continue marshaling. > > > > > > This way we can probably get rid of write "state" at all. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > I went through our so-called "direct serialization" and appears to be > > not > > > > very efficient to me. We never write message length. As a result we > > have > > > to > > > > constantly track what was written and what was not, and whether we > > have a > > > > room for the next write. The same goes for reader. As a result even > > > single > > > > "writeInt" is surrounded with multiple checks and writes. > > > > > > > > It looks like we can make our algorithm much more simple, > > straightforward > > > > and efficient if we add two things to every message: > > > > - Message length > > > > - Flag indicating whether it was written fully or not. > > > > > > > > If message was written fully to the buffer, we do no need to perform > > any > > > > checks during deserialization. To read int it is enough to call > > > > *ByteBuffer.getInt()*. To read byte array it is enough to call > > > > *ByteBuffer.getByte()*, etc. Simple and fast. > > > > > > > > And only if message was split into pieces on either send or receive > > > sides, > > > > which should not happen often, we may want to fallback to current > > > > implementation. Or may be we may copy such message to a separate > > buffer > > > > and still read them without any boundaries checks and > > "incrementStates". > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > > > > > >
