Hi Thomas, Thanks a lot. For now, I have to use my own implementation which is 50 times faster than CP but lack of many features from CP. Looking forward to CP 2.x release, and I don't like invent my own wheels.
-- Daniel Wu Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig) On Monday, September 30, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 30/09/2013 03:35, Daniel Wu wrote: > > Without the pool, it's lightning fast. JProfiler shows most of the time is > > consumed on locking, thread dump also shows the pool always waits. > > I tried to timing the pool operations, the results proved the JProfiler > > reports > > > > e,g. with 50 threads, the log shows > > Average Response Time:0.06 > > Average Borrow Time:0.04 > > Average Return Time:0.02 > > > > So, the time are consumed with StringBuilder and GC is negligible, most of > > the time are wasted in pool locking. > > > > With 100 threads, the log shows > > Average Response Time:1.24 > > Average Borrow Time:0.90 > > Average Return Time:0.34 > > > > The more threads try to content with the pool, the slower the pool is. > > > > I kind of believe CP is just slow. > > In environments where there is more than one core/processor available > and there is a high rate of borrow/return events then pool 1.x is slow > and it will get worse the more cores/processors that there are available. > > Pool 2 was designed to address those performance issues. > > 1.5.x and 1.6.x are better than earlier 1.x versions but 2.x should be a > significant improvement. > > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > (mailto:user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org) > For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org > (mailto:user-h...@commons.apache.org) > >
