9:23 a.m.
No, Socket.send() is not a hotspot in the Java code.
On the networking level, with UDP datagrams, a packet is placed into a
buffer and send() returns after the packet has been placed into the
buffer successfully. Some network stacks simply discard the packet if
the buffer is full, I assume.
With TCP, send() blocks until the packet has been placed into the buffer
and an ack has been received. If the receiver can't keep up with the
sending rate, it'll reduce the window to 0, so send() blocks until the
receiver catches up.
So if you send 2 requests in paralle over TCP, both threads would
block() on the send.
So I don't think parallelization would make sense here, unless of course
you're doing something else, such as serialization, lock acquisition etc...
On 2/4/12 3:43 PM, Manik Surtani wrote:
Is that a micro-optimisation? Do we know that socket.send() really
is a hotspot?
On 1 Feb 2012, at 00:11, Dan Berindei wrote:
> It's true, but then JGroups' GroupRequest does exactly the same thing...
>
> socket.send() takes some time too, I thought sending the request in
> parallel would mean calling socket.send() on a separate thread for
> each recipient.
>
> Cheers
> Dan
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Manik Surtani<manik(a)jboss.org> wrote:
>> Doesn't setBlockForResults(false) mean that we're not waiting on a
response, and can proceed to the next message to the next recipient?
>>
>> On 27 Jan 2012, at 16:34, Dan Berindei wrote:
>>
>>> Manik, Bela, I think we send the requests sequentially as well. In
>>> ReplicationTask.call:
>>>
>>> for (Address a : targets) {
>>> NotifyingFuture<Object> f =
>>> sendMessageWithFuture(constructMessage(buf, a), opts);
>>> futureCollator.watchFuture(f, a);
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> In MessageDispatcher.sendMessageWithFuture:
>>>
>>> UnicastRequest<T> req=new UnicastRequest<T>(msg, corr,
dest, options);
>>> req.setBlockForResults(false);
>>> req.execute();
>>>
>>>
>>> Did we use to send each request on a separate thread?
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bela Ban<bban(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> yes.
>>>>
>>>> On 1/27/12 12:13 PM, Manik Surtani wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25 Jan 2012, at 09:42, Bela Ban wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, parallel unicasts will be faster, as an anycast to A,B,C
sends the
>>>>>> unicasts sequentially
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this still the case in JG 3.x?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bela Ban
>>>> Lead JGroups (http://www.jgroups.org)
>>>> JBoss / Red Hat
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>
>> --
>> Manik Surtani
>> manik(a)jboss.org
>> twitter.com/maniksurtani
>>
>> Lead, Infinispan
>> http://www.infinispan.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
twitter.com/maniksurtani
Lead, Infinispan
http://www.infinispan.org
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Bela Ban
Lead JGroups (http://www.jgroups.org)
JBoss / Red Hat