My line of thought was, if every request requires a blocking DB call, why
incur the cost of switching threads within a request, if I can instead
simply increase the number of IO threads without any adverse effect.
--
Chandra Sekar.S
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Bill O'Neil <bill(a)dartalley.com> wrote:
This is exactly what the worker thread pool is built for why would
you
want to use the IO threads instead? The IO threads are for reading /
writing to the socket of the HTTP request. All blocking operations SHOULD
be dispatched to worker threads.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Chandru <chandru.in(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If I have a HTTP service where every request requires a blocking JDBC
> call, is it acceptable to increase the number of IO threads to a large
> value (say, 10*cores) instead of dispatching to worker thread pool on each
> request?
>
> Will configuring such a large number of IO threads lead to any adverse
> effect on throughput or latency?
>
> --
> Chandra Sekar.S
>
> _______________________________________________
> undertow-dev mailing list
> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>