"timfox" wrote : It's a well known fact that direct bytebuffer allocation is much slower than non direct byte buffers. | | If you think about it when you allocate a non direct byte buffer then it basically just needs to dereference a pointer to some memory on the Java heap, which is very quick. But for a direct buffer, it has to malloc real memory from the OS, and do a bunch of other house keeping. | | So yes, if you're using direct byte buffers it pays to re-use them. | | You should speak to Trustin about this. I believe Netty uses non direct buffers for exactly this reason. I need a direct buffer on AIO, because of memory alignments and JNI invocations. But there shouldn' t be a reason for that. If I called malloc/posix_mem_align (which is the same as malloc, but aligned) and created the direct myself using the memory position, and a JNI method, it would be way much faster (100x as my test showed). View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4214497#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...