If the thread pool with the cpu core is for the netty boss thread, I think it should be fine. But if the thread pool is for the worker thread, it could be a problem if there are lots of requests need to be processed.
Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM yhs0092 <yhs0...@163.com> wrote: > > I agree that current default value of thread pool size is too small, but I'm > not sure about the disadvantages of the current fixed thread pool. > Do you mean if multiple service instances is deployed on the same machine, a > fixed thread pool is not so flexible since the instances cannot clean up some > idle business thread? > > > Yours sincerely > > > Yao Haishi > yhs0...@163.com > > > On 1/24/2019 10:49，wjm wjm<zzz...@gmail.com> wrote： > or default integrate only one ThreadPoolExecutor? > because most customers TPS is not so high, no need to do this optimize > > wjm wjm <zzz...@gmail.com> 于2019年1月24日周四 上午10:35写道： > > currently we provide a default sync invocation executor: > > - default integrate two fixed thread pool > - thread count for one pool is equals cpu count > > for most customers, thread count of one pool is too small, and fixed > thread pool is not so good, so will change to: > > - default integrate two ThreadPoolExecutor > - support to configure core/max thread count, keepAlive time and max > queue size for one pool > - default core thread: 25, same to tomcat > - default max thread: 100, tomcat is 200, because we have 2 pool, so > change to 100 > - default keepAlive: 1 minute, same to tomcat > - default max queue size: Integer.MAX_VALUE, same to tomcat > >
