On 17/11/06, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We usually have been taught that direct buffers will perform better than heap buffers, but many performance test results including mine are saying that heap buffers are performing *far* better. I got almost 50% performance boost after switching from direct buffer with PooledByteBufferAllocator to heap buffer with SimpleByteBufferAllocator. Is there anyone who had similar experiences?
Yes, in Qpid our performance testing shows heap buffers with the SimpleByteBufferAllocator offers the best performance.
In this context, I think the value of the default buffer pooling that MINA provides might be dubious. If this is true, should we have to have acquire() and release() methods sacrificing API usability? Why don't we just get rid of (or deprecate) them and let the VM take care of the whole buffer management?
Absolutely agree 100%.
PS: I beat Apache HTTP 2.0.55 with MINA + AsyncWeb today. I was able to get 20,000 msg/sec throughput with my dual core opteron dual box. I will give you an update later when more data is gathered and feel confident that I configured Apache HTTPD to its maximum performance.
Fantastic!! Was this with the standard socket io processor or the multithreaded one that Martin and I developed for Qpid? Also which version of the JDK was this with? 1.6? Thanks, Robert
