Re: Coconut AIO
Quartz <[email protected]> Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:33:58 -0800 (PST)
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.seda.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> 5. > Im not to sure about the backpressure mechanism Quartz is talking about. But non-blocking > sockets does not backpressure in anyway. Well, then, in the example >3000 connections --> stage 1 --> stage 2 >Stage 1: accepts connections and delegate its >processing to stage 2 >Stage 2: this stage can`t swallow the produced >channels so will you make a bloquing enqueue here? I >did it ... my result was a BrokenPipeException because >network queue got full. the conclusion is accurate: >[...] the first stage was doomed. If one stage must absolutely pump out the available data, then I would expect the stage 1 to throttle down the other stage (granted it is a separate stage) that 'accepts' connections! After all, this requires some admission control. Feels like there was no admision control at all (too many accepts). That seams to be the correct backpressure. The client would get connection timeout, I suppose. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/