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@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@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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev