Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

RxServer should have a separate acceptor eventloop group #166

Closed
NiteshKant opened this issue Jul 3, 2014 · 0 comments
Closed

RxServer should have a separate acceptor eventloop group #166

NiteshKant opened this issue Jul 3, 2014 · 0 comments
Milestone
0.3.7

Comments

@NiteshKant
Copy link
Member

Based on our internal benchmarks the following eventloop configuration works best:

  • Have a single threaded eventloop group for accepting new client connections.
  • Have a worker eventloop group for processing data on a client connection. The default configuration would be the eventloop threads equal to the number of cores on the machine.

Any server created via RxNetty must have the above configuration, however, it can be overridden using the available builder methods.
@NiteshKant NiteshKant added this to the 0.3.7 milestone Jul 3, 2014
@NiteshKant NiteshKant self-assigned this Jul 3, 2014
NiteshKant pushed a commit to NiteshKant/RxNetty that referenced this issue Jul 3, 2014
Fixes ReactiveX#167 ReactiveX#166 ReactiveX#164
81974f2 
ReactiveX#164: Removed flatMap() usage in HttpConnectionHandler in favor of a custom operator.
ReactiveX#166: Defined a facility to also specify the acceptor event loop. RxNetty defaults to an acceptor event loop with 1 thread. Also, the number of worker threads == number of available processors.
ReactiveX#167: Not sending Connection: keep-alive for HTTP 1.1. protocol
@NiteshKant NiteshKant mentioned this issue Jul 3, 2014
Merged
NiteshKant added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 3, 2014
@NiteshKant
Merge pull request #168 from NiteshKant/master
059ad96 
Fixes #167 #166 #164
@NiteshKant NiteshKant removed their assignment Aug 19, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
0.3.7
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@NiteshKant