Tony , did you read my whole post ? "Note pure Java solutions like Java NIO may be better than JeroMQ , there was a discussion on this earlier . I dont know JeroMQs architecture but pure solutions tend to consider the GC issues rather than trivially wrapping the API , they reuse byte[] buffers to copy from and to the kernel , and may even employ unsafe / JNI code to self manage some buffers so you dont need to pin the GC .. . "
Ben On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Tony Arcieri <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Bennie Kloosteman <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Yes compared to native langauges all GC languages incur extra IO costs >> eg When writing both languages they need to read/copy the data to the >> kernel , but the GC language needs to tell the GC to pin each buffer so it >> doesnt reloccate it ,this can be significant for lots of small packets. >> > > This isn't true at all. I suggest you look into JVM features like direct > buffers and pay particular attention to LMAX disruptor. It's possible to > keep all buffers off the GC-managed heap and build applications that > completely preallocate all memory they use even when running on the JVM so > they have zero allocation load or garbage collection. > > -- > Tony Arcieri > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
