I have a program that spawns threads (~5-150) which perform a bunch of tasks. Originally, I used a FixedThreadPool because this similar question suggested they were better suited for longer lived tasks and with my very limited knowledge of multithreading, I considered the average life of the threads (several minutes) "long lived".
However, I recently added the capability to spawn additional threads and doing so takes me above the thread limit I set. In this case, would it be better to guess and increase the number threads I can allow or to switch to a CachedThreadPool so I have no wasted threads?
Trying them both out preliminarily, there doesn't seem to be a difference so I'm inclined to go with the CachedThreadPool just to avoid the waste. However, does the life span of the threads mean I should instead picked a FixedThreadPool and just deal with the unused threads? This question makes it seem like those extra threads aren't wasted but I would appreciate the clarification.
A CachedThreadPool seems appropriate for your situation as there are no negative consequence to using one for long running threads directly. The comment in the java doc about CachedThreadPools being suitable for short tasks merely suggest that they are particularly appropriate for such cases, not that they cannot be used for long running tasks.
The main concern with a CachedThreadPool is that it will create up to Integer.MAX_VALUE number of threads as it will always spawn a new thread if an unused one does not exist in the cache. So if you have long running tasks it is then more likely that you could grow the number of concurrent threads more than you desire since this type of thread pool will not limit how many execute concurrently itself. This does not seem to be a problem for your use case as described, but it is something to be aware of.
To elaborate further on the difference between a CachedThreadPool and a FixedThreadPool, Executors.newCachedThreadPool and Executors.newFixedThreadPool are both backed by the same thread pool implementation (at least in the open JDK) via an instance of ThreadPoolExecutor, just with different parameters. The differences just being their thread minimum, maximum, thread kill time, and queue type.
public static ExecutorService newFixedThreadPool(int nThreads) {
return new ThreadPoolExecutor(nThreads, nThreads,
0L, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS,
new LinkedBlockingQueue<Runnable>());
}
public static ExecutorService newCachedThreadPool() {
return new ThreadPoolExecutor(0, Integer.MAX_VALUE,
60L, TimeUnit.SECONDS,
new SynchronousQueue<Runnable>());
}
A FixedThreadPool does have its advantages when you do in fact want to work with a fixed number of threads, since then you can submit any number of tasks to the executor service while knowing that the number of threads will be maintained at the level you specified. If you explicitly want to grow the number of threads, then this is not the appropriate choice.
This does however mean that the one issue that you may have with the CachedThreadPool is in regards to limiting the number of threads that are running concurrently. The CachedThreadPool will not limit them for you, so you may need to write your own code to ensure that you do not run too many threads, which you can do relatively easily by instantiating your own ThreadPoolExecutor with your desired behaviour characteristics. This really depends on the design of your application and how tasks are submitted to the executor service.