Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: NIO not so hot
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 20:14:44 +0200
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <buheklF870tU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <t24en9putph3mbnulkveghdjbrnisp105h@4ax.com> <btrkdnFjc3qU1@mid.individual.net> <btrkeiFjc3qU2@mid.individual.net> <btrme9Fjp4lU1@mid.individual.net> <bts7pqFne9dU1@mid.individual.net> <7gs5o912idp4au3skqgivf1lhgulte0h07@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 0sLD7sIjr7cNHcmGJNo1bA54TOx5wnO1nHRhuf1jiAnNH1v5w=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TvkEU5LEXCY0eyNlWVPI2zRtEMw=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
In-Reply-To: <7gs5o912idp4au3skqgivf1lhgulte0h07@4ax.com>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:28567

On 26.05.2014 09:51, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2014 19:09:13 +0200, Robert Klemme
> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>>   - Adding byte buffering to IO does not help, rather it makes
>>     things slower.
>
> That is what you would expect because NIO is doing its own byte
> buffering, so an extra layer just gets in the way.

IO - not NIO!

> However for ordinary i/o I discovered allocating your space 50:50 to
> the byte and char buffer was optimal.

This is contrary to what my results show.  Did you look at them or run 
the tests yourself?

Regards

	robert