Re: [infinispan-dev] Concurrent hashmaps parameters

David M. Lloyd wrote: > NonBlockingHashMap is great *except* that it relies on sun.misc.Unsafe, > which makes portability a bit iffy. I *think* that it could be ported to > use Atomic* instead, but it looked like quite a bit of work to do so (not > to mention testing). > > The problem with CHM is that they are *big*, so you don't want to have a > lot of them - *especially* if you're using a high concurrency level, > because they get even bigger in that case. Understood that CHMs are big, but back to my question: how doesn Infinispan intend to address hashmaps with 1000 different keys ? Or are you guys already parameterizing creation of CHMs ?