HornetQ is pure java so if you have a JDK then you dont need to port anything.

Someone would probably have to write a posix AIO version of our implementation.

Our native IO version however is already doing async writes batched by the TimedBuffers. libaio is done at the kernel level, while Posix AIO is a level above the kernel I think. So I"m not sure PosixAIO will give you any benefits in top of our asynchronous implementation in Java.

we dont have any plans to support FreeBSD, however feel free to port the code and we will feed it back into the commmunity.

Radim,

If that's something at users thread level and not kernel I suspect posix AIO will hardly give you any benefit in top if the pure java implementation in place which is already simulating asynchronous writes.

To give you an idea libaio still alive just because the direct memory and direct writes made a difference, but if Posix AIO is just a good wrapper I don't see a point in oerformance to justify the investment.

I undestand that. I"m just saying I am not sure it would bring benefit since it's a thread's implementation with asynchronous writes similar to what we do on the TimedBuffer.

POSIX AIO on Linux could introduce performance issues since it would be an extra level ot call to the calls.

if you want to contribute the code changes I'm all support for it. It shouldn't be a lot of changes in terms of coding. I would though still prefer to keep the current libaio available in parallel, at least until we are completely sure it has no performance impact.  I have spent quite some good ammount of time on it.. and replacing the whole library will require performance tests and QA tests.