Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F08200BB4 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:02:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id D47EF160AE2; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:02:00 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C665160AEC for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:02:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 32407 invoked by uid 500); 17 Oct 2016 17:01:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list issues@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 32389 invoked by uid 99); 17 Oct 2016 17:01:59 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:01:59 +0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arcas (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C3A2C4C72 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:01:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:01:59 +0000 (UTC) From: "stack (JIRA)" To: issues@hbase.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-16783) Use ByteBufferPool for the header and message during Rpc response MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:02:01 -0000 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16783?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15582764#comment-15582764 ] stack commented on HBASE-16783: ------------------------------- Dumb question. Why a ByteBufferPoolManager introduced? We seem to move the guts of ByteBufferListOutputStream to a new class ByteBufferPoolManager but ByteBufferPoolManager is not used anywhere else (unless I am misreading). Why not just leave it as is? Is intent saving allocation of a a few bytes building headers? We have numbers that going via synchronization to a pool is better than a small allocation? Patch looking good otherwise. > Use ByteBufferPool for the header and message during Rpc response > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-16783 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16783 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan > Assignee: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan > Priority: Minor > Attachments: HBASE-16783.patch, HBASE-16783_1.patch, HBASE-16783_2.patch, HBASE-16783_3.patch > > > With ByteBufferPool in place we could avoid the byte[] creation in RpcServer#createHeaderAndMessageBytes and try using the Buffer from the pool rather than creating byte[] every time. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)