mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Ulrich <steve.ulr...@proemion.com>
Subject RE: [MINA 3] Session write queue
Date Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:13:32 GMT
D4n Outlook. This time with a better quotation... I hope

> Emmanuel Lecharny [mailto:elecharny@gmail.com] wrote
>
> Fair enough. But we can mitigate this risk on the IoProcessor too, by
> pulling out of the queue all the messages for a session, until the
> socket can't accept any more writing. Something like :
>
> while () {
>      WriteReqest message = queue.get();
>      Session session = message.getSession();
>      Channel channel = session.getChannel();
>
>      while ( channel is ready for write) do {
>          channel.write( message );
>          message = queue.get( session );
>      }
> }

That would require a queue per session. So I don't see a difference to the prior model. I
thought you wanted a single queue for all session of an IoProcessor.

> Does it sounds crazy ?

No, but I'm currently not seeing the difference, besides the fact that the IoProcessor handles
the queues. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your suggestion.

> > * An additional cpu cost will be the increased synchronization
> efforts inside the queue... There will be more threads, writing to the
> same queue at the same time.
> No, because the IoProcessor is using one single thread.

Ok, I'm not too deep into the IoProcessor, but I thought the writing requests of different
sessions (put to the queue) could be handled simultaneously, while the IoProcessor itself
is single-threaded (poll from the queue).

> Hmmmm, whatever the queues use, it's irrelevant. There is no reason
> that
> we don't use the same in the IoProcessor queue, as we have the exact
> same number of elements in this queue than the number of all the
> elements used in all the Session queues.

Maybe there is a little overhead for each queue, but I don't think that it is big enough to
justify a design for itself.

> > Write-Throttling may be done by a filter. IMHO It's the better place
> anyway.
>
> Absolutly.
> > So you may have the option to place the write throttle at the start
> of your queue and save processor speed.
>
> Yes. The problem is to deal with the throttle in a filter, which is not
> totally obvious.

Yes, I have tried it by myself, but didn't get too far.

regards

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROEMION GmbH

Steve Ulrich

IT Development (IT/DEV)

Donaustrasse 14
D-36043 Fulda, Germany
Phone +49 (0) 661 9490-601
Fax +49 (0) 661 9490-333
http://www.proemion.com/
mailto:steve.ulrich@proemion.com

Geschäftsführer: Dipl. Ing. Robert Michaelides
Amtsgericht-Registergericht-Fulda: 5 HRB 1867
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail and any attachments may be confidential. If you have received this E-mail and you are
not a named addressee, please inform the sender immediately by E-mail and then delete this
E-mail from your system. If you are not a named addressee, you may not use, disclose, distribute,
copy or print this E-mail. Addressees should scan this E-mail and any attachments for viruses.
No representation or warranty is made as to the absence of viruses in this E-mail or any of
its attachments.

AKTUELLES
http://www.rmcan.de/

NEWS
http://www.rmcan.com/



Mime
View raw message