I have three independend tasks to be executed at every 1 minute. Here I have developed two options.
Option1
ScheduledExecutorService service1 = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1);
ScheduledExecutorService service2 = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1);
ScheduledExecutorService service2 = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1);
service1.scheduleAtFixedRate(new task1(), 0, 60, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
service2.scheduleAtFixedRate(new task2(), 0, 60, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
service3.scheduleAtFixedRate(new task3(), 0, 60, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
Option2
ScheduledExecutorService service = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(3);
service.scheduleAtFixedRate(new task1(), 0, 60, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
service.scheduleAtFixedRate(new task2(), 0, 60, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
service.scheduleAtFixedRate(new task3(), 0, 60, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
My question is which option is preferred? Does Option1 consume more system resources?
I don't know the implementation details to give an exact answer as to which usage would consume more system resources. But the second option is definitely the way which is supported by Javadoc, tutorials, etc. There are some reasons which I can point out. First, the ScheduledExecutorService
interface exposes the ability to schedule multiple tasks with a single service.
There is also a reason to not use the first option. You were trying to schedule three tasks using three separate executors. But there is no guarantee that all three tasks would begin at the same time, but the executors are different and could be spun up at different times. On the other hand, if you used a single executor service the three tasks should be started concurrently.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With