[jensneuse]

Let's say you have constantly 1k requests per second and for each request, you need one buffer, each 1 MiB. That means you have 1 GiB in the pool. Without a pool, there's a high likelihood that you're using less. Why? Because in reality, most requests need a 1 MiB buffer but SOME require a 5 MiB buffer. As such, your pool grows over time as you don't have control over the distribution of the size of the pool items.

So, if you have predictable object sizes, the pool will stay flat. If the workloads are random, you have a new problem because, like in this scenario, your pool grows 5x more.

You can solve this problem. E.g. you can only give back items into the pool that are small enough. Alternatively, you could have a small pool and a big pool, but now you're playing cat and mouse.

In such a scenario, it could also work to simply allocate and use GC to clean up. Then you don't have to worry about memory and the lifetime of objects, which makes your code much simpler to read and reason about.

[jerf]

Long before sync.Pool was a thing, I wrote a pool for []bytes: https://github.com/thejerf/gomempool I haven't taken it down because it isn't obsoleted by sync.Pool because the pool is aware of the size of the []bytes. Though it may be somewhat obsoleted by the fact the GC has gotten a lot better since I wrote it, somewhere in the 1.3 time frame. But it solve exactly that problem I had; relatively infrequent messages from the computer's point of view (e.g., a system that is probably getting messages every 50ms or so), but that had to be pulled into buffers completely to process, and had highly irregular sizes. The GC was doing a ton of work when I was allocating them all the time but it was easy to reuse buffers in my situation.

[theThree]

>That means you have 1 GiB in the pool.

This only happen when every request last 1 second.