Opps I find that in the next release there is no more pooling. My bad. But any ideas about the advantage of using direct buffer for writing? Pooling direct buffer hurts performance, but probably can bring down the memory footprint. Some users might want to control over memory usage???
ukong wrote: > > I am just a casual user of MINA but I come across looking at the source > code of PooledByteBufferAllocator when I found out that my app has been > using a lot non-heap memory which does not seem to release. > > I believe direct buffers are not garbaged collected but in the current > implementation of PooledByteBufferAllocator, the stacks of direct buffers > are expired the same as heap buffers (in class > PooledByteBufferAllocator.Expirer, around line 260) > > As long as direct buffers are not garbaged collected, would it be better > NOT to expire direct buffers - always keep their references and reuse > them? > > If direct buffers WERE released to the OS, I bet it wouldn't happen very > frequently - therefore current default of 60 seconds of timeout for direct > buffer does not look reasonable. > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Concerns-about-pooling-and-expiring-direct-buffers-tf4225654s16868.html#a12021047 Sent from the Apache MINA Support Forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
