I just want to say that when I'm setting TCP_NODELAY I expect that every
portion of data is being transmitted right after I called
ContentEncoder.write() (even without waiting for ACK for previous TCP
packet)
I've looked through the code in trunk, and looks like this expectation
will fail after this change.

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:39:49AM +0300, Dmitry Potapov wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski 
> > <[email protected]<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2013-02-21 at 12:26 +0530, Asankha C. Perera wrote:
> > >> Hi Oleg
> > >> > I made really major changes to HttpCore NIO in order to reduce
> packet
> > >> > fragmentation on the TCP level when transmitting relatively short
> (less
> > >> > than 1 TCP frame) entity enclosing messages. In my tests I am
> seeing 25
> > >> > to 30% performance improvements for short PUT and POST requests on
> the
> > >> > client side and for short responses the server side as a result of
> > >> > reduced TCP packet fragmentation.
> > >> This is interesting.. What was the size of the messages that yielded
> the
> > >> improvement? Does this also relate to the use of tcpnodelay
> > >
> > > 2048 bytes. I was using this micro-benchmark to compare performance of
> > > different versions. I had tcpnodelay set to true for all test
> scenarios.
> > So, in fact HttpCore NIO doesn't respect behaviour of TCP_NODELAY, if
> > ConnectionConfig.Builder.setFragmentSizeHint(0) wasn't called?
> > I think this should be implicitly stated in javadocs, because this is
> > not clear without reading the code.
> >
>
> Dmitry
>
> TCP_NODELAY and fragmentation parameters are completely unrelated. What I
> was trying to say was that I had run all my tests with TCP_NODELAY set to
> true.
>
> Oleg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;>
>
>

Reply via email to