[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16783?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15582764#comment-15582764 ]
stack commented on HBASE-16783: ------------------------------- Dumb question. Why a ByteBufferPoolManager introduced? We seem to move the guts of ByteBufferListOutputStream to a new class ByteBufferPoolManager but ByteBufferPoolManager is not used anywhere else (unless I am misreading). Why not just leave it as is? Is intent saving allocation of a a few bytes building headers? We have numbers that going via synchronization to a pool is better than a small allocation? Patch looking good otherwise. > Use ByteBufferPool for the header and message during Rpc response > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-16783 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16783 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan > Assignee: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan > Priority: Minor > Attachments: HBASE-16783.patch, HBASE-16783_1.patch, > HBASE-16783_2.patch, HBASE-16783_3.patch > > > With ByteBufferPool in place we could avoid the byte[] creation in > RpcServer#createHeaderAndMessageBytes and try using the Buffer from the pool > rather than creating byte[] every time. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)