On 01/03/2012 17:13, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: > Mark, what buffer size are you referring to increase for the web socket > tests to all pass?
Sorry, should have been clearer about that. In o.a.c.websocket.MessageInbound // 2MB - like maxPostSize private int byteBufferMaxSize = 2097152; private int charBufferMaxSize = 2097152; I normally multiple those by 16. The buffers need to be 16M plus a bit for the headers so I allow a large margin ;) Mark > > Filip > > On 3/1/2012 9:42 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: >> On 01/03/2012 15:03, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: >>>> I have a draft patch [1] that seems to fix this. A similar change would >>>> be required for the Comet part of Poller.processKey() >>>> >>>> Thoughts and/or comments? Not knowing the NIO code very well, there >>>> might be a better way to achieve the same result that I haven't seen. >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://people.apache.org/~markt/patches/draft/2012-03-01-trunk-nio.patch >>>> >>> I took a look at the patch. IMHO it's not the right way to go. >> That doesn't surprise me. You know the NIO code better than I do. >> >>> You're adding in flags to compensate for the state machine in the >>> selector. >> Yep. On that topic, I couldn't find any decent information on the state >> machine in the selector. Do you know of any? There was a fair amount of >> guess work involved investigating this issue and a clearer picture of >> the state machine would help develop a better patch. >> >>> And by doing so, you will have the selector run more than it needs to >> Yep. >> >>> cause you have read interest turned on, >> Yep. >> >>> on sockets that you are already processing, >> Yep. Agree with you completely up to this point. >> >>> wasting CPU cycles. >> This part I wasn't so sure of. There is a problem here that affects >> WebSocket badly and Comet intermittently and fixing that problem may >> well require the trade off of additional processing. I compared the NIO >> blocking figures I have and the NIO non-blocking figures to see if there >> was a noticeable performance difference. >> >> The patch does impact performance. Typically it is<3% but for large >> numbers of small packets it can be as high as ~15%. On this basis my >> patch is clearly far from ideal. I look forward to seeing what insights >> you have on how best to solve this for both WebSocket and Comet. >> >> Interestingly, I don't recall anything that suggests that this problem >> affects HTTP although it isn't impossible that there is a very slim >> window somewhere where HTTP may be affected. >> >> Mark >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org