Gregg Wonderly wrote:
Peter Firmstone wrote:
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
In addition to a limit related to the number of runnable tasks, a TaskManager has a hard limit on the number of threads it will create.

The parameterless constructor has limit 10, and most other uses have compile time limits in the range of 10 to 15 threads.

com.sun.jini.reggie.RegisrarImpl has a compile time limit of 50 threads.

com.sun.jini.mahalo.TxnManagerImpl creates two pools, settlerpool and taskpool. The settlerpool has limit 150 threads. The taskpool has limit 50 threads.

Even 150 threads could be low in a large server, especially if the threads are used to wait for anything, so that each thread does not need a hardware thread for a significant fraction of its life.

As noted in the NIO vs. IO discussion that Peter pointed out, the key to getting good performance simply is to take advantage of the fact that an idle thread is a cheap, simple way to remember the state of some activity.

There is one approach that would minimize the number of changes but increase flexibility. We could redefine the maximum thread count as being the maximum number of threads per X, where X is a measure of system size with a minimum of 1, but increasing on large systems.

X could be based on the number of processors, the maximum heap memory, or some combination.

I'm in favour of this suggestion.

Auto sizing is good, but we should also consider putting in logging that announces when the limit is reached and waiting will occur. This will help people diagnose the potential system pauses, if not deadlock that will be outwardly visible.

Agreed. I would be interested both in the distribution of times that tasks spend waiting for other tasks and in the distribution of times that they spend as ready tasks, waiting for a thread.

On top of that, I'd be strongly in favor the introduction of JMX as an external observation and management capability for these types of values.

I don't know much about JMX, but I strongly agree with external observation and management.

Incidentally, do you know why the default load level is 3, not 1?

Patricia

Reply via email to