Skip to content

Slow OSC Server#4

Open
mw10013 wants to merge 2 commits into
rosejn:masterfrom
mw10013:master
Open

Slow OSC Server#4
mw10013 wants to merge 2 commits into
rosejn:masterfrom
mw10013:master

Conversation

@mw10013

@mw10013 mw10013 commented Jul 17, 2011

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

changed PriorityBlockingQueue to LinkedBlockingQueue so that multiple messages with timestamp 0 get sent out in FIFO order

… messages with timestamp 0 get sent out in FIFO order
@rosejn

rosejn commented Jul 17, 2011

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Hmmm, the problem with this is that it doesn't sort by timestamp anymore, which we use a lot with Overtone. Do you actually see a performance difference with this change?

@mw10013

mw10013 commented Jul 17, 2011

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I'm sending a fair amount of events to a slow osc server. The events are processed out of real time and just need to be in order.

In the previous version, I discovered that events would sometimes get sent in an indeterminate order.

It seemed that all my events were coming in with a timestamp of 0 and the priority queue does not maintain order for timestamps of the same value.

It's been a while since I looked at this so my details may be off. Are you creating osc events with explicit timestamps? I'm letting the machinery create the timestamp implicitly and I currently don't have performance constraints, only order is important

On Jul 17, 2011, at 5:37 AM, rosejnreply@reply.github.com wrote:

Hmmm, the problem with this is that it doesn't sort by timestamp anymore, which we use a lot with Overtone. Do you actually see a performance difference with this change?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#4 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants