Hi Costin, On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 10:01:08AM -0800, Costin Manolache wrote:
> One of the problems is that jasper is a tricky piece of code, and > usually reducing memory this way can have unexpected impact. Maybe a > more 'moderate' approach would be more acceptable, like checking the > size of the buffers, and only reset it if it is indeed 'huge'. This > would take care of the worse case, yet still allow keeping the buffers > around for normal use. > > Don't know what testing you did (to evaluate the performance impact > of the change), but try with a very large number of concurent > requests. That's where avoiding buffer allocations is most visible, > Remy spent a lot of time making sure no buffer is allocated in the > critical path under load. Well, performance is probably affected by my proposed patch. I just had a setup to hunt the memory "leaks". Maybe we could introduce a threshold like 4 times the default buffer size. If a buffer is above this, it will be reinitialized when the pageContext is released. It might also be worthwile to not throw away these buffers but to pool them (if they don't get too large), so only the arrays containing the buffers need to be (re)allocated. In the current implementation you might end up with huge buffers hanging around which are unlikely to be used again (e.g. they may have been allocated during a high-load period and are now referenced by tags deeply "hidden" in the tag pools). Bye, Tino. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
