Ah, yup, you are correct. Slightly better then GPL :)
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Duffy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: 1000+ simultaneous connections with data transfer?
I think it's actually LGPL.
On 4/21/07, Michael Grundvig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm using Trove for a large project currently. It's faster at times and
slower at others with the newest JDK. Overall though, if you can get away
with a primitive as the key, it works quite well. The licensing is a
problem
though as it's GPL.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ming Fang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: 1000+ simultaneous connections with data transfer?
> Has anyone try using the Trove HashMap implementation(http://
> trove4j.sourceforge.net/)?
> For some tests it is many times faster than the JDK one.
>
> On Apr 21, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Richard Lowe wrote:
>
>> I found that HashMap lookups with this amount of packets can be
>> particularly expensive, as can creating byte arrays (even
tiny ones). I
>> find that Mina session attributes are very useful. I know all of
>> that
>> sounds obvious, but you'd be surprised how simple little operations
can
>> stack up.
>>
>> If you have to write a byte array to the IoHandler adapter, use
>> ByteBuffer.wrap(b) - this seems pretty fast.
>>
>> I hope that might be useful for anybody else trying to do anything
>> similar!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Richard.
>> --
>>
>> Trustin Lee wrote:
>>> Additionally, did you try to turn on 'tcp no delay' option? (this
>>> doesn't affect CPU utilization but might improve throughput)
>>>
>>> ((SocketSessionConfig) cfg.getSessionConfig()).setTcpNoDelay(true);
>>>
>>> and... It would be nice to see your IoHandler implementation code.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> Trustin
>>
>
