Does it really matter the size of the objects you send through a Socket with object input/output streams?

Question

Is it more efficient to flush the OutputStream after each individual invocation of ObjectOutputStream#writeObject rather than flushing the stream after a sequence of object writes? (Example: write object and flush 4 times, or write 4 times and then just flush once?)

How does ObjectOutputStream work internally?

Answer 1

Is it somehow better sending four Object[5] (flushing each one) than a Object[20], for example?

It is not better. In fact it is probably worse, from a performance perspective. Each of those flushes will force the OS-level TCP/IP stack to send the data "right now". If you just do one flush at the end, you should save on system calls, and on network traffic.

If you haven't done this already, inserting a BufferedOutputStream between the Socket OutputStream and the ObjectOutputStream will make a much bigger difference to performance. This allows the serialized data to accumulate in memory before being written to the socket stream. This potentially save many system calls and could improve performance by orders of magnitude ... depending on the actual objects being sent.

(The representation of four Object[5] objects is larger than one Object[20] object, and that results in a performance hit in the first case. However, this is marginal at most, and tiny compared with the flushing and buffering issues.)

How does this stream work internally?

That is too general a question to answer sensibly. I suggest that you read up on serialization starting with the documents on this page.

Answer 2

No, it shouldn't matter, unless you have reason to believe the net link is likely to go down, and partial data is useful. Otherwise it just sounds like a way to make the code more complex for no reason.

Answer 3

If you look at the one and only public constructor of ObjectOutputStream, you note that it requires an underlying OutputStream for its instantiation.

When and how you flush your ObjectStream is entirely dependent on the type of stream you are using. (And in considering all this, do keep in mind that not all extension of OutputStream are guaranteed to respect your request to flush -- it is entirely implementation independent, as it is spelled out in the 'contract' of the javadocs.)

But certainly we can reason about it and even pull up the code and see what is actually done.

IFF the underlying OutputStream must utilize the OS services for devices (such as the disk or the network interface in case of Sockets) then the behavior of flush() is entirely OS dependent. For example, you may grab the output stream of a socket and then instantiate an ObjectOutputStream to write serialized objects to the net. TCP/IP implementation of the host OS is in charge.

What is more efficient?

Well, if your object stream is wrapping a ByteArrayOutputStream, you are potentially looking at a series of reallocs and System.arrayCopy() calls. I say potentially, since the implementation of byte array doubles the size on each (internal) resize() op and it is very unlikely that writing n (small) objects and flushing each time will result in n reallocs. (Where n is assumed to be a reasonably small number).

But if you are wrapping a network stream, you must keep in mind that network writes are very expensive. It makes much more sense, if your protocol allows it, to chunk your writes (to fill the send buffer) and just flush once.