[infinispan-dev] HotRod client - optimize serialization

Manik Surtani manik at jboss.org
Mon Jul 5 06:50:37 EDT 2010


On 5 Jul 2010, at 11:33, Mircea Markus wrote:

> 
> On 5 Jul 2010, at 13:21, Manik Surtani wrote:
> 
>> What sort of socket do you use?  Depending on this, socket.getOutputStream() may be the most efficient (if it is a zero-copy NIO buffer for example).
>         SocketChannel socketChannel = SocketChannel.open(serverAddress);
>         *socket* = socketChannel.socket();

Hmm.  You could use ByteBuffers - and reuse them as well, if you know that the byte array sizes are *roughly* similar.  You will still have the same problem of a spike in value size that you described below, in the case of pooling ExposedBAOS instances.  You could maintain a threshold and if such a stream were to exceed this size, instead of resetting and reusing this instance you drop it from the pool and create a new one... 

This threshold would have to be configurable though otherwise you may end up with a lot of unnecessary GC churn.


>> 
>> Why do you need to hang on to the byte[] representation for keys?
> I need it for hashing calculation, as java hotrod client is distribution aware.
>> 
>> 
>> On 5 Jul 2010, at 11:10, Mircea Markus wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> On HR we serialize the (key, value) pairs before sending them to the client.
>>> Current approach is we transfer them into an byte[] using an ByteArrayInputStream/ByteArrayOutputStream and then write them over the network with socket.getOutputStream().write(byte[])  
>>> 
>>> What I'm looking for a better way of serializing, by reusing byte arrays.
>>> One approach would be to use an pool of ExposedByteArrayOutputStream, pool's size being == number of tcp connections between client and server. My concern with this approach is that if one is using a large value (e.g. 100MB ) once in a blue moon, than I'll always keep an 100MB array in memory, cached, even though I don't want it. 
>>> 
>>> Another approach would be to use use existing code for keys(i.e. serialize them into an byte[]), which are expected to be smaller, and for values to write directly in the  socket, through socket.getOutputStream(). This way I won't have the 100MB issue and also I won't create an byte[] for each value (I need to do that for keys though, as I need access to key's byet[] for computing its hash code).
>>> 
>>> Any suggestions much appreciated!
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mircea
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>> 
>> --
>> Manik Surtani
>> manik at jboss.org
>> Lead, Infinispan
>> Lead, JBoss Cache
>> http://www.infinispan.org
>> http://www.jbosscache.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

--
Manik Surtani
manik at jboss.org
Lead, Infinispan
Lead, JBoss Cache
http://www.infinispan.org
http://www.jbosscache.org







More information about the infinispan-dev mailing list