2012/7/20 Mark Slee <[email protected]> > Agreed with Rush. A couple other considerations worth mentioning here: > > - There is a bit of TCP overhead every time you create and then tear down > a connection, if you're trying to squeeze out really high performance and > this is the same client talking to the same server, it's preferable not to > pay that every time > > - Re-using the client does mean that the socket is also held open longer > on the server side. Timeouts may come into play here if there are > significant delays between client calls. If your server specifies a read > timeout - it *will* close the client connection after that period elapses > with no new call being made. >
Hi Mark , thanks for your reply, and I want to know How to change the read timeout or set the server without timeout until the client close the connection? > > So, as long as your server is not going to be maxed out on connections > from tons of different clients, it's generally preferable to re-use. > > On 7/19/12 10:02 AM, "Rush Manbert" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On Jul 18, 2012, at 11:45 PM, panfei wrote: > > > >> Hi all: > >> > >> there maybe a lot of RPC calls from the client to the server, I want to > >> know , in this case, should I create a transport and keep it opened to > >>do > >> the RPC calls , or should I create a transport on every RPC call ? and > >>why > >> ? thanks ! > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 不学习，不知道 > > > >On a *nix system, opening a transport for each RPC call uses a socket. > >When you close the transport, the system keeps the socket around for a > >while, so it is unavailable for re-use. Depending on the rate at which > >you make RPC calls, your system can get starved for sockets, and you will > >need to add retry logic to handle that. So it's better to open a single > >client and use it for multiple calls. > > > >I'm guessing you would see the same effect from a Windows client. > > > >- Rush > > -- 不学习，不知道
