ant-ivy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Xavier Hanin" <xavier.ha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ivy:retrieve performance
Date Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:20:25 GMT
On 6/14/07, Buck, Robert <rbuck@verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> We benchmarked a number of JDK IO API's for an internal project. To
> neutralize any questions regarding NIO vs Old IO, please take a look at
> the attached diagram. These rates will be largely identical on both
> Linux and Windows. Blue line NIO, red line old io.


Thanks for sharing this with us!

If you do not get the attached JPEG file, let me know. I can send it
> directly to you if you so request.


I can't see the attached file, could you please send it to me directly. TIA.

Xavier

Cheers,
>
> Bob
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:22 AM
> > To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: ivy:retrieve performance
> >
> > On 6/14/07, Gilles Scokart <gscokart@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2. The buffer in FileUtils.java is too small. It's set at
> > 8192. It
> > > > seems to
> > > > > be much better for me to set it much larger. This is due to the
> > > > > fact
> > > > that
> > > > > it
> > > > > needs to read and write simultaneously. The bigger the
> > buffer is,
> > > > > the smaller number of time, HD header has to move. For
> > me, 65536
> > > > > seems to perform much better but I haven't tried other numbers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to get more feedback on this. One use case is
> > not the other.
> > > This
> > > > size has been borrowed from Ant copy mechanism. Maybe
> > what we could
> > > > do
> > > is
> > > > make this configurable, so that one could adapt to its
> > needs. Or try
> > > > to guess a good size depending on the size (when it's possible to
> > > > get an
> > > idea
> > > > of the size before copying).
> > > >
> > > > Xavier
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Couldn't we use the nio for that?  (See
> > > http://www.javalobby.org/java/forums/t17036.html)
> >
> >
> > According to comments 10 and 11 NIO have bad performance for
> > large files on linux, and input stream with byte buffer is
> > pretty close to NIO for small files (see comment 13
> > conclusion). So I'm not sure switching to NIO would indeed
> > help a lot. According to the tests in the thread you pointed
> > using a 64kB buffer seems to be a good choice (which confirms
> >  testn tests), at least for large files. OTOH the last
> > conclusion (comment 17) is different.
> > So I don't really know what to think about that. We should
> > make some tests on several platforms and jvms to draw
> > conclusion ourself, but it takes time.
> >
> >
> > Xavier
> >
> > Gilles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant Manage your
> > dependencies with Ivy!
> > http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
> >
>



-- 
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
Manage your dependencies with Ivy!
http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message