Develop Reference

Java Executor Service Start Threads when Application Launches

When my application launches, a executor service (using Executors.newFixedThreadPool(maxThreadNum) in java.util.concurrent) object is created. When requests come, the executor service will creates threads to handle them.
Because it takes time to create threads at run time, I want to make threads available when launching application, so that when requests come, it would take less time to process.
What I did is following:
executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(200);
for (int i=0; i<200; i++) {
executorService.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Start thread in pool " );
}
});
}
It will creates 200 threads in the executorService pool when application launches.
Just wonder is this a correct way of creating threads when application starts?
Or is there a better way of doing it?

You are missing shutdown().It is very important to shutdown the Executor service once the operation is completed. So have try,catch and Finally block
try{
executorService.execute(...);
}catach(Exception e){
...
}finally{
executorService.shutdown(); //Mandatory
}

If you can use a ThreadPoolExecutor directly rather than an ExecutorService from Executors1, then there's perhaps a more standard/supported way to start all the core threads immediately.
int nThreads = 200;
ThreadPoolExecutor executor = new ThreadPoolExecutor(nThreads, nThreads,
0L, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS, new LinkedBlockingQueue<>());
executor.prestartAllCoreThreads();
The above uses prestartAllCoreThreads().
Note that, currently, the implementation of Executors.newFixedThreadPool(int) creates a ThreadPoolExecutor in the exact same manner as above. This means you could technically cast the ExecutorService returned by the factory method to a ThreadPoolExecutor. There's nothing in the documentation that guarantees it will be a ThreadPoolExecutor, however.
1. ThreadPoolExecutor implements ExecutorService but provides more functionality. Also, many of the factory methods in Executors either returns a ThreadPoolExecutor directly or a wrapper that delegates to one. Some, like newWorkStealingPool, use the ForkJoinPool. Again, the return types of these factory methods are implementation details so don't rely too much on it.

The number of threads which could run parallel depends on your processor core. Unless you have 200 cores it would be pretty useless to make a thread pool of 200.
A great way to find out how many processors cores you have is:
int cores = Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors();
Moreover the overhead which develops during creating a new thread and executing it is unavoidable, so unless the task is heavily computed it would not be worth to create a new single thread for this task.
But after all your code is total fine so far.

Your code is totally fine if it works for your scenario. Since we don't know your use case, only you can answer your question with enough tests and benchmark.
However, do take note that the ThreadPool will reclaim idle threads after some time. That may bite you if you don't pay attention to it.

Just wonder is this a correct way of creating threads when application
starts?
Yes. That's a correct way of creating threads.
Or is there a better way of doing it?
Maybe. Under some workloads you might want to use a Thread pool with a variable number of threads (unlike the one created by newFixedThreadPool) - one that removes from the pool threads that have been idle for some time.

Difference between these two snippets using Thread and Executor for quick Java threading? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
When should we use Java's Thread over Executor?
(7 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
In Java, both of the following code snippets can be used to quickly spawn a new thread for running some task-
This one using Thread-
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// TODO: Code goes here
}
}).start();
And this one using Executor-
Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor().execute(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
// TODO: Code goes here
}
});
Internally, what is the difference between this two codes and which one is a better approach?
Just in case, I'm developing for Android.
Now I think, I was actually looking for use-cases of newSingleThreadExecutor(). Exactly this was asked in this question and answered-
Examples of when it is convenient to use Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor()

Your second example is strange, creating an executor just to run one task is not a good usage. The point of having the executor is so that you can keep it around for the duration of your application and submit tasks to it. It will work but you're not getting the benefits of having the executor.
The executor can keep a pool of threads handy that it can reuse for incoming tasks, so that each task doesn't have to spin up a new thread, or if you pick the singleThread one it can enforce that the tasks are done in sequence and not overlap. With the executor you can better separate the individual tasks being performed from the technical implementation of how the work is done.
With the first approach where you create a thread, if something goes wrong with your task in some cases the thread can get leaked; it gets hung up on something, never finishes its task, and the thread is lost to the application and anything else using that JVM. Using an executor can put an upper bound on the number of threads you lose to this kind of error, so at least your application degrades gracefully and doesn't impair other applications using the same JVM.
Also with the thread approach each thread you create has to be kept track of separately (so that for instance you can interrupt them once it's time to shutdown the application), with the executor you can shut the executor down once and let it handle its threads itself.

The second using an ExecutorService is definitely the best approach.
ExecutorService determines how you want your tasks to run concurrently. It decouples the Runnables (or Callables) from their execution.
When using Thread, you couple the tasks with how you want them to be executed, giving you much less flexibility.
Also, ExecutorService gives you a better way of tracking your tasks and getting a return value with Future while the start method from Thread just run without giving any information. Thread therefore encourages you to code side-effects in the Runnable which may make the overall execution harder to understand and debug.
Also Thread is a costly resource and ExecutorService can handle their lifecycle, reusing Thread to run a new tasks or creating new ones depending on the strategy you defined. For instance: Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(); creates a ThreadPoolExecutor with only one thread that can sequentially execute the tasks passed to it while Executors.newFixedThreadPool(8)creates a ThreadPoolExecutor with 8 thread allowing to run a maximum of 8 tasks in parallel.

You already have three answers, but I think this question deserves one more because none of the others talk about thread pools and the problem that they are meant to solve.
A thread pool (e.g., java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor) is meant to reduce the number of threads that are created and destroyed by a program.
Some programs need to continually create and destroy new tasks that will run in separate threads. One example is a server that accepts connections from many clients, and spawns a new task to serve each one.
Creating a new thread for each new task is expensive; In many programs, the cost of creating the thread can be significantly higher than the cost of performing the task. Instead of letting a thread die after it has finished one task, wouldn't it be better to use the same thread over again to perform the next one?
That's what a thread pool does: It manages and re-uses a controlled number of worker threads, to perform your program's tasks.
Your two examples show two different ways of creating a single thread that will perform a single task, but there's no context. How much work will that task perform? How long will it take?
The first example is a perfectly acceptable way to create a thread that will run for a long time---a thread that must exist for the entire lifetime of the program, or a thread that performs a task so big that the cost of creating and destroying the thread is not significant.
Your second example makes no sense though because it creates a thread pool just to execute one Runnable. Creating a thread pool for one Runnable (or worse, for each new task) completely defeats the purpose of the thread-pool which is to re-use threads.
P.S.: If you are writing code that will become part of some larger system, and you are worried about the "right way" to create threads, then you probably should also learn what problem the java.util.concurrent.ThreadFactory interface was meant to solve.
Google is your friend.

According to documentation of ThreadPoolExecutor
Thread pools address two different problems: they usually provide
improved performance when executing large numbers of asynchronous
tasks, due to reduced per-task invocation overhead, and they provide a
means of bounding and managing the resources, including threads,
consumed when executing a collection of tasks. Each ThreadPoolExecutor
also maintains some basic statistics, such as the number of completed
tasks.
First approach is suitable for me if I want to spawn single background processing and for small applications.
I will prefer second approach for controlled thread execution environment. If I use ThreadPoolExecutor, I am sure that 1 thread will be running at time , even If I submit more threads to executor. Such cases are tend to happen if you consider large enterprise application, where threading logic is not exposed to other modules. In large enterprise application , you want to control the number of concurrent running threads. So second approach is more pereferable if you are designing enterprise or large scale applications.

What are the advantages of using an ExecutorService?

What is the advantage of using ExecutorService over running threads passing a Runnable into the Thread constructor?

ExecutorService abstracts away many of the complexities associated with the lower-level abstractions like raw Thread. It provides mechanisms for safely starting, closing down, submitting, executing, and blocking on the successful or abrupt termination of tasks (expressed as Runnable or Callable).
From JCiP, Section 6.2, straight from the horse's mouth:
Executor may be a simple interface, but it forms the basis for a flexible and powerful framework for asynchronous task execution that supports a wide variety of task execution policies. It provides a standard means of decoupling task submission from task execution, describing tasks as Runnable. The Executor implementations also provide lifecycle support and hooks for adding statistics gathering, application management, and monitoring.
...
Using an Executor is usually the easiest path to implementing a producer-consumer design in your application.
Rather than spending your time implementing (often incorrectly, and with great effort) the underlying infrastructure for parallelism, the j.u.concurrent framework allows you to instead focus on structuring tasks, dependencies, potential parallelism. For a large swath of concurrent applications, it is straightforward to identify and exploit task boundaries and make use of j.u.c, allowing you to focus on the much smaller subset of true concurrency challenges which may require more specialized solutions.
Also, despite the boilerplate look and feel, the Oracle API page summarizing the concurrency utilities includes some really solid arguments for using them, not least:
Developers are likely to already
understand the standard library
classes, so there is no need to learn
the API and behavior of ad-hoc
concurrent components. Additionally,
concurrent applications are far
simpler to debug when they are built
on reliable, well-tested components.
Java concurrency in practice is a good book on concurrency. If you haven't already, get yourself a copy. The comprehensive approach to concurrency presented there goes well beyond this question, and will save you a lot of heartache in the long run.

An advantage I see is in managing/scheduling several threads. With ExecutorService, you don't have to write your own thread manager which can be plagued with bugs. This is especially useful if your program needs to run several threads at once. For example you want to execute two threads at a time, you can easily do it like this:
ExecutorService exec = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
exec.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Hello world");
}
});
exec.shutdown();
The example may be trivial, but try to think that the "hello world" line consists of a heavy operation and you want that operation to run in several threads at a time in order to improve your program's performance. This is just one example, there are still many cases that you want to schedule or run several threads and use ExecutorService as your thread manager.
For running a single thread, I don't see any clear advantage of using ExecutorService.

The following limitations from traditional Thread overcome by Executor framework(built-in Thread Pool framework).
Poor Resource Management i.e. It keep on creating new resource for every request. No limit to creating resource. Using Executor framework we can reuse the existing resources and put limit on creating resources.
Not Robust : If we keep on creating new thread we will get StackOverflowException exception consequently our JVM will crash.
Overhead Creation of time : For each request we need to create new resource. To creating new resource is time consuming. i.e. Thread Creating > task. Using Executor framework we can get built in Thread Pool.
Benefits of Thread Pool
Use of Thread Pool reduces response time by avoiding thread creation during request or task processing.
Use of Thread Pool allows you to change your execution policy as you need. you can go from single thread to multiple thread by just replacing ExecutorService implementation.
Thread Pool in Java application increases stability of system by creating a configured number of threads decided based on system load and available resource.
Thread Pool frees application developer from thread management stuff and allows to focus on business logic.
Source

Below are some benefits:
Executor service manage thread in asynchronous way
Use Future callable to get the return result after thread completion.
Manage allocation of work to free thread and resale completed work from thread for assigning new work automatically
fork - join framework for parallel processing
Better communication between threads
invokeAll and invokeAny give more control to run any or all thread at once
shutdown provide capability for completion of all thread assigned work
Scheduled Executor Services provide methods for producing repeating invocations of runnables and callables
Hope it will help you

Is it really that expensive to create a new thread?
As a benchmark, I just created 60,000 threads with Runnables with empty run() methods. After creating each thread, I called its start(..) method immediately. This took about 30 seconds of intense CPU activity. Similar experiments have been done in response to this question. The summary of those is that if the threads do not finish immediately, and a large number of active threads accumulate (a few thousand), then there will be problems: (1) each thread has a stack, so you will run out of memory, (2) there might be a limit on the number of threads per process imposed by the OS, but not necessarily, it seems.
So, as far as I can see, if we're talking about launching say 10 threads per second, and they all finish faster than new ones start, and we can guarantee that this rate won't be exceeded too much, then the ExecutorService doesn't offer any concrete advantage in visible performance or stability. (Though it may still make it more convenient or readable to express certain concurrency ideas in code.) On the other hand, if you might be scheduling hundreds or thousands of tasks per second, which take time to run, you could run into big problems straight away. This might happen unexpectedly, e.g. if you create threads in response to requests to a server, and there is a spike in the intensity of requests that your server receives. But e.g. one thread in response to every user input event (key press, mouse motion) seems to be perfectly fine, as long as the tasks are brief.

ExecutorService also gives access to FutureTask which will return to the calling class the results of a background task once completed. In the case of implementing Callable
public class TaskOne implements Callable<String> {
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
String message = "Task One here. . .";
return message;
}
}
public class TaskTwo implements Callable<String> {
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
String message = "Task Two here . . . ";
return message;
}
}
// from the calling class
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
// set of Callable types
Set<Callable<String>>callables = new HashSet<Callable<String>>();
// add tasks to Set
callables.add(new TaskOne());
callables.add(new TaskTwo());
// list of Future<String> types stores the result of invokeAll()
List<Future<String>>futures = service.invokeAll(callables);
// iterate through the list and print results from get();
for(Future<String>future : futures) {
System.out.println(future.get());
}

Prior to java 1.5 version, Thread/Runnable was designed for two separate services
Unit of work
Execution of that unit of work
ExecutorService decouples those two services by designating Runnable/Callable as unit of work and Executor as a mechanism to execute ( with lifecycling) the unit of work

Executor Framework
//Task
Runnable someTask = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Hello World!");
}
};
//Thread
Thread thread = new Thread(someTask);
thread.start();
//Executor
Executor executor = new Executor() {
#Override
public void execute(Runnable command) {
Thread thread = new Thread(someTask);
thread.start();
}
};
Executor is just an interface which accept Runnable. execute() method can just call command.run() or working with other classes which use Runnable(e.g. Thread)
interface Executor
execute(Runnable command)
ExecutorService interface which extends Executor and adds methods for managing - shutdown() and submit() which returns Future[About] - get(), cancel()
interface ExecutorService extends Executor
Future<?> submit(Runnable task)
shutdown()
...
ScheduledExecutorService extends ExecutorService for planning executing tasks
interface ScheduledExecutorService extends ExecutorService
schedule()
Executors class which is a Factory to provide ExecutorService realisations for running async tasks[About]
class Executors
newFixedThreadPool() returns ThreadPoolExecutor
newCachedThreadPool() returns ThreadPoolExecutor
newSingleThreadExecutor() returns FinalizableDelegatedExecutorService
newWorkStealingPool() returns ForkJoinPool
newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor() returns DelegatedScheduledExecutorService
newScheduledThreadPool() returns ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor
...
Conclusion
Working with Thread is an expensive operation for CPU and memory.
ThreadPoolExecutor consist of Task Queue(BlockingQueue) and Thread Pool(Set of Worker) which have better performance and API to handle async tasks

Creating a large number of threads with no restriction to the maximum threshold can cause application to run out of heap memory. Because of that creating a ThreadPool is much better solution. Using ThreadPool we can limit the number of threads can be pooled and reused.
Executors framework facilitate process of creating Thread pools in java. Executors class provide simple implementation of ExecutorService using ThreadPoolExecutor.
Source:
What is Executors Framework

Java ThreadPool with poolsize of 1

Does it make sense to use a ThreadPool with a poolsize of just 1 to basically just recycle that one thread over and over again for different uses in the application? Rather then doing new Thread(Runnable()) etc and then letting the garbage collector handle the removal of the thread, I thought it would be more efficient to just use that one thread for different jobs that dont need to run together.
This is what I am currently doing to define 1 poolsize threadpool.
private static int poolSize = 1;
private static int maxPoolSize = 1;
private static long keepAliveTime= 10;
private static final ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable>(100);
private static ThreadPoolExecutor threadPool = new ThreadPoolExecutor(poolSize, maxPoolSize, keepAliveTime, TimeUnit.SECONDS, queue);

There is nothing wrong with a single threaded thread pool if it fits with how you application should function. For example, in an application I work on we have a number of services where we need to ensure that data is strictly processed in order of arrival. To do this we simply execute tasks on a single threaded executor.
Also using Executors means that it is easy to adjust the thread pool parameters in the future if you need to.

With new Thread(Runnable) you can execute N threads concurrently. It may be an advantage, but it also may bring synchronization issues.
With reusing one Thread you lose the ability to execute tasks in parallel, but you are spared the sync/concurrency issues.

Defining a one-thread pool this way is perfectly compatible with modern coding standards. it has the only drawback of not letting you parallelize any fragment of yhe code. However, I guess that's what you wanted.

One of the advantage of using the ThreadPoolExecutor being that once the thread is created, it will get reused as against creation of new Thread everytime when using new Thread.

Have you tried it without a Thread ? Threads are no efficient unless really needed and you need to do a lot of I/O specific stuff in parallel. If what you are looking for is a simple internal message queue, then it is fine.

The difference between Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor().execute(command) and new Thread(command).start();

Well title says it, what is the difference between Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor().execute(command) and new Thread(command).start();

Behaviourally, pretty much nothing.
However, once you have an Executor instance, you can submit multiple tasks to it, and have them executed one after another. You can't do that simply with a raw Thread.

One noticeable difference, is when you run new Thread(someRunnable).start(); when the runnable is finished the thread will die quietly.
The Executor though will persist until you shut it down. So running Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor().execute(command) When you think your application or the JVM may be finished the Executor may still be running in a background thread.

With Executor.execute, if an Error or RuntimeException is thrown in the Executor it will be swallowed silently, while the new Thread() will print it to System.err.

There can be many differences, but I will show you one difference which I found very important to understand:
public void sendEventSingleThreadExecutor(Event e){
Executor.singleThreadExecutor().execute(()->{//send the event here})
}
Now, even if you call sendEventSingleThreadExecutor method 10 times, it will use only a single thread to send them. It will not create a new thread every time. Which means that the events will be sent sequentially or synchronously!
You can read more from here:
Now see the below example with new thread
public void sendEventThread(Event e){
Thread(//send the event here).start();
}
If you call it 10 times, it will create 10 new threads. Which means, the executions will be asynchronous! And it could be dangerous, it can create a lot of threads depending on how many times you call sendEventThread functions.
Please note that, the code are only for demonstration purpose, it might have syntax error!
If you find any wrong description here, I will be happy to be corrected.
Some more information from here
newSingleThreadExecutor. A single-threaded executor creates a single
worker thread to process tasks, replacing it if it dies unexpectedly.
Tasks are guaranteed to be processed sequentially according to the
order imposed by the task queue (FIFO, LIFO, priority order).[4]
[4] Single-threaded executors also provide sufficient internal
synchronization to guarantee that any memory writes made by tasks are
visible to subsequent tasks; this means that objects can be safely
confined to the “task thread” even though that thread may be replaced
with another from time to time.

I prefer to use ExecutorService or ThreadPoolExecutor even for single digit threads. They offer more flexibility.
Have a look at ExecutorService & ThreadPoolExecutor sections in related SE questions :
java Fork/Join pool, ExecutorService and CountDownLatch
Java's Fork/Join vs ExecutorService - when to use which?
Assume that you have started with your own thread instead of ExecutorService. In future, if there is a need for supporting multiple threads, ExecutorService or ThreadPoolExecutor will offer better control and flexibility for you. You can fine-tune required number of parameters in these below APIs.
ThreadPoolExecutor(int corePoolSize, int maximumPoolSize, long keepAliveTime,
TimeUnit unit, BlockingQueue<Runnable> workQueue, ThreadFactory threadFactory,
RejectedExecutionHandler handler)

Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor().execute(command) will reuse previously constructed thread, it will not created new thread as in case of new Thread(). If the thread that have not been used for sixty seconds are terminated, It's a kind of pool which contains a single thread which make its equivalent newFixedThreadPool(1).