Perhaps something got optimized by the JVM? I'll add some JMH tests to this repo to try out various approaches.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 21:12, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > I tried using a FileChannel for the FileAppender a week or so ago to see > if passing the ByteBuffer to the FileChannel would improve performance > since it doesn’t have to be synchronized. I didn’t see any improvement > though and I ended up reverting it. But I might have done something wrong. > > Ralph > > On Feb 25, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We already use a bit of NIO (ByteBuffer for layouts and > appenders/managers, MappedByteBuffer for mmap'd files, FileLock for locking > files, etc.), and I've been playing around with the NIO API lately. I have > some sample code here <https://github.com/jvz/nio-logger> to show some > trivial use case of AsynchronousFileChannel. In Java 7, there is also > AsynchronousSocketChannel which could theoretically be used instead of > adding Netty for a faster socket appender. In that regard, I'm curious as > to how useful it would be to have similar appenders as the OutputStream > ones, but instead using WritableByteChannel, GatheringByteChannel (possible > parallelization of file writing?), and the async channels (there's an > AsynchronousByteChannel class, but I think they screwed this one up as only > one of the three async channel classes implements it). > > Another related issue I've seen is that in a message-oriented appender > (e.g., the Kafka one), being able to stream directly to a ByteBuffer is not > the right way to go about encoding log messages into the appender. Instead, > I was thinking that a pool of reusable ByteBuffers could be used here where > a ByteBuffer is borrowed on write and returned on completion (via a > CompletionHandler callback). The Kafka client uses a similar strategy for > producing messages by dynamically allocating a pool of ByteBuffers based on > available memory. > > Also, I don't have much experience with this, but if we had a pool of > reusable ByteBuffers, could we use direct allocation to get off-heap > buffers? That seems like an interesting use case. > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
