Le 9/25/13 3:14 AM, Christian Hammers a écrit :
> Hello
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:51:04 -0700
> Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>
>> Just get rid of the executor, and increase the number of IoProcessor,
>> you will be able to spread the load on many threads, and each new UDP
>> message will be completel
Depends on what aspect of asynchronous you are looking for. The sockets are
always async. If you have a bunch of ioprocessors then you have
concurrency where more than one message can be processed at any given time.
On Sep 25, 2013 6:15 AM, "Christian Hammers" wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2
Hello
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:51:04 -0700
Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Le 9/24/13 9:47 AM, Christian Hammers a écrit :
> > Hello
> >
> > I've written a server for a proprietary UDP protocol that needs to answer
> > with
> > exactly one packet for every incoming packet. All packets are independent
Le 9/24/13 9:47 AM, Christian Hammers a écrit :
> Hello
>
> I've written a server for a proprietary UDP protocol that needs to answer with
> exactly one packet for every incoming packet. All packets are independent from
> each other so that I like to have each one handled asynchronously by a
> diff
The first thing I would do would be to disable the executor and try again.
You could be encountering some sort of deadlock.
On Sep 24, 2013 12:47 PM, "Christian Hammers"
wrote:
> Hello
>
> I've written a server for a proprietary UDP protocol that needs to answer
> with
> exactly one packet for ev
Hello
I've written a server for a proprietary UDP protocol that needs to answer with
exactly one packet for every incoming packet. All packets are independent from
each other so that I like to have each one handled asynchronously by a
different thread from a pool with a certain maximum size.
So f
