Randomaccessfile updating Free adult games for mobile without sign up or registration
Before jumping with both feet, and replacing our journaller implementation, I thought I would try to isolate the change with a small benchmark that performs a similar workload to our exchange, with the ability to swap out the implementation of the write call. Since this is a micro-benchmark, I wanted to test just the code path, separated from the underlying storage medium.If there is a significant difference, then this is something to try on a real file-system, under real load.The concept of a temporary buffer was rejected as being too costly in object creations.This would be the case if a new buffer was used for each call.
Our standard journalling technique, that we previously discovered to be the best for latency & throughput, is to write using a Benchmarks. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, any results you get from benchmarks should be taken with a pinch of salt, and will not necessarily represent the measurements you think that they do.Usage is very straightforward, and standard csv line endings (newline character), value delimiter (comma), and quotation character (double quote) are the defaults.In my last post, I described the benefits of upgrading hardware, operating system and file-system in order to improve the latency of file writes.Before our recent changes to reduce write latency, we probably didn’t notice the overhead of the extra system call due to the background noise on the system.Since improvements have been made, it is worth re-testing using the method to see if there is any measurable benefit.
This is NOT a very heavy price to pay for performance gains of up to 800% !!