activemq-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ARTEMIS-905) JCtools ConcurrentMap replacement
Date Thu, 05 Jan 2017 15:48:58 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-905?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15801698#comment-15801698
] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on ARTEMIS-905:
----------------------------------------

Github user ig-michaelpearce commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/945
  
    @franz1981 I was just looking at the results, p50 (50%) and mean are equal so one expects
these to be equal,  i notice in the results they have different values within the same test
result. 


> JCtools ConcurrentMap replacement
> ---------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ARTEMIS-905
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-905
>             Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Francesco Nigro
>            Priority: Minor
>
> The OSS project JCTools (already used in Netty core) provides primitive (long) and normal
implementations of ConcurrentMap with better scalability, lower memory footprint (garbage
collector wise too) and equals to better performances than the vanilla's ConcurrentHashMap.
> It worth to replace every ConcurrentHashMap usage with the JCtools version.
> [Here|http://www.azulsystems.com/blog/cliff/2007-03-26-non-blocking-hashtable] there
is an old but valid overview of the map and on JCtools are provided [JMH benchmarks|https://github.com/JCTools/JCTools/blob/master/jctools-benchmarks/src/main/java/org/jctools/maps/nhbm_test/jmh/ConcurrentMapThroughput.java]
to evaluate the performance of the implementation.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message