Yes, where/when/how send is being called might be important, thats one reason why I asked for an example showing the behaviour.
The java reactor does also has a wakeup method to prod the thread blocked in process() to life, which notes itself to be the only method you can call at the same time another thread is using the reactor. Robbie On 25 February 2016 at 19:03, Ken Giusti <kgiu...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Andrew - are you calling send() from within a reactor callback? Or from > another thread? > > I'm not very familiar with the Java reactor, but the C reactor has a method > called pn_reactor_wakeup() which causes it to immediately return from the > blocking select() call. > > -K > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Andrew Buckley" <and...@microsoft.com> >> To: d...@qpid.apache.org, proton@qpid.apache.org >> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 12:45:04 PM >> Subject: RE: Proton-J Reactor sending delay >> >> Ah, thanks Robbie. Yes I do now notice the 3141ms timeout inside run(). Are >> there plans to make that timeout configurable? At least from my point of >> view, 3 seconds is quite a long time to wait between calling send and the >> action actually being performed, and applications using the Reactor do >> suffer a bit of a blow in performance because of this. >> >> Thanks, >> -Andrew >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robbie Gemmell [mailto:robbie.gemm...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 3:47 AM >> To: d...@qpid.apache.org; proton@qpid.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Proton-J Reactor sending delay >> >> On 13 February 2016 at 00:28, Andrew Buckley <and...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> > I'm using the reactor with Proton-J and have noticed that there is a 2-4 >> > second delay between when I call send() on a particular link and when that >> > transfer frame actually goes out. Is this expected behavior? If so, are >> > there plans to improve on this? And if not, have you seen this in any >> > other scenario and might you have any ideas what could be causing it? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > -Andrew Buckley >> > >> >> Hi Andrew, >> >> While im no expert on the reactor, I'd be surprised if that was expected, and >> I can't say I'm aware of it being mentioned before. >> >> One thing that springs to mind from previous discussion [about proton-c >> reactor] is that when the reactor has a particular thread dedicated to >> running it, it sets a 3141ms timeout on its selector meaning it wakes up at >> that period when it is 'quiesced' (has nothing to do). Seems like perhaps >> that could be related given your note of 2-4sec. >> >> Do you have an example showing the behaviour? >> >> Robbie >> >> (added proton@ as well, in case anyone only paying attention there has >> thoughts) >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional >> commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org >> >> > > -- > -K > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org >
