We Keep Coding

How is a thread pool able to re-use threads?

Our current course assignment specifies that we are supposed to create a manager for a thread pool using the "Object Pool Manager" design pattern which spawns a set amount of threads. The ownership of these threads shall be transferred to the client and then back to the pool after the client has finished using it. If no thread exists in the pool then the client has to wait.
My confusion comes from the fact that a thread is supposedly not reusable, which defeats the purpose of pooling them. Have I understood the assignment incorrectly?

Threads are reusable as long as they have not ended. A pool of threads generally involves threads that do work as it is given to them, and then wait for more work. Thus, they never end until explicitly told to do so. The trick is designing them in a way such that the work they are given ends, but the thread itself does not. Thread pools are useful because it is often relatively expensive to create/destroy threads.

#Kaliatech has already explained the concept behind re-use of threads. Also "The ownership of these threads shall be transferred to the client" is slightly misleading as the ownership of threads generally remain with the thread-pool/object-pool as it is the manager of this pool and the client should simply submits the task to the pool which can either complete successfully or fail. The thread continues to run ready to pick the next task submitted to the pool. As a design too the separation of task object ( Runnable/Callable) and the object representing thread execution (Thread) are designed to be different. Should the need arise the thread-pool is responsible for ramping up/down the number of threads as they are expensive to create and manage. Java ThreadPoolExecutor will be a good example to refer to how typically such a thread pool works.

Is it expensive to create the Thread object or to actually start the thread?

Consider this question.
Now there are various reasons as why creating a thread is expensive, notably the fact that a lot of memory needs to be allocated and the thread needs to be registered.
Now consider this code:
Thread thread = new Thread(new SomeRunnable());
thread.start();
Which part of that is the "expensive" part? The line that actually creates the Thread object or the line that starts the thread? Or both? The reason why I am asking is because I am writing the server-component of a game and I am debating if I should create the Thread object as soon as the player connects and start the thread once the player finishes logging in, or should I both create and start the thread after the player finishes logging in.

Creating a Thread object is very cheap. You just pay the price of calling the constructor. It's the start() method that takes up space (native calls, stack memory, etc.)
On the other hand if you create plenty of threads, consider creating (and starting them) in advance and having a pool. This is already done for you, check out Executors class.

This really smacks of premature optimization to me. I really doubt that you are going to see any difference between instantiating or starting the thread earlier rather than later. If it was 100 threads then I might feel differently.
If you have seen performance problems with your application then I would encourage you to use a profiler to discover the real performance sinks.

If you want to avoid the cost of thread creation, use a Thread pool. I agree with #Gray though. Like a connection pool, a thread pool keeps you from creating things over and over again (and it keeps the number of threads from growing uncontrollably).

Any available design pattern for a thread that is capable of executing a specific job sent by another threads?

I'm working on a project where execution time is critical. In one of the algorithms I have, I need to save some data into a database.
What I did is call a method that does that. It fires a new thread every time it's called. I faced a runoutofmemory problem since the loaded threads are more than 20,000 ...
My question now is, I want to start only one thread, when the method is called, it adds the job into a queue and notifies the thread, it sleeps when no jobs are available and so on. Any design patterns available or examples available online ?

Run, do not walk to your friendly Javadocs and look up ExecutorService, especially Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor().
ExecutorService myXS = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
// then, as needed...
myXS.submit(myRunnable);
And it will handle the rest.

Yes, you want a worker thread or thread pool pattern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_pool_pattern
See http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-jtp0730/index.html for Java examples

I believe the pattern you're looking for is called producer-consumer. In Java, you can use the blocking methods on a BlockingQueue to pass tasks from the producers (that create the jobs) to the consumer (the single worker thread). This will make the worker thread automatically sleep when no jobs are available in the queue, and wake up when one is added. The concurrent collections should also handle using multiple worker threads.

Are you looking for java.util.concurrent.Executor?
That said, if you have 20000 concurrent inserts into the database, using a thread pool will probably not save you: If the database can't keep up, the queue will get longer and longer, until you run out of memory again. Also, note that an executors queue is volatile, i.e. if the server crashes, the data in it will be gone.

Spawning tons of threads without running out of memory

I have a multi-threaded application which creates hundreds of threads on the fly. When the JVM has less memory available than necessary to create the next Thread, it's unable to create more threads. Every thread lives for 1-3 minutes. Is there a way, if I create a thread and don't start it, the application can be made to automatically start it when it has resources, and otherwise wait until existing threads die?

You're responsible for checking your available memory before allocating more resources, if you're running close to your limit. One way to do this is to use the MemoryUsage class, or use one of:
Runtime.getRuntime().totalMemory()
Runtime.getRuntime().freeMemory()
...to see how much memory is available. To figure out how much is used, of course, you just subtract total from free. Then, in your app, simply set a MAX_MEMORY_USAGE value that, when your app has used that amount or more memory, it stops creating more threads until the amount of used memory has dropped back below this threshold. This way you're always running with the maximum number of threads, and not exceeding memory available.
Finally, instead of trying to create threads without starting them (because once you've created the Thread object, you're already taking up the memory), simply do one of the following:
Keep a queue of things that need to be done, and create a new thread for those things as memory becomes available
Use a "thread pool", let's say a max of 128 threads, as all your "workers". When a worker thread is done with a job, it simply checks the pending work queue to see if anything is waiting to be done, and if so, it removes that job from the queue and starts work.

I ran into a similar issue recently and I used the NotifyingBlockingThreadPoolExecutor solution described at this site:
http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2008/10/23/creating-a-notifying-blocking-thread-pool-executor.html
The basic idea is that this NotifyingBlockingThreadPoolExecutor will execute tasks in parallel like the ThreadPoolExecutor, but if you try to add a task and there are no threads available, it will wait. It allowed me to keep the code with the simple "create all the tasks I need as soon as I need them" approach while avoiding huge overhead of waiting tasks instantiated all at once.
It's unclear from your question, but if you're using straight threads instead of Executors and Runnables, you should be learning about java.util.concurrent package and using that instead: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/executors.html

Just write code to do exactly what you want. Your question describes a recipe for a solution, just implement that recipe. Also, you should give serious thought to re-architecting. You only need a thread for things you want to do concurrently and you can't usefully do hundreds of things concurrently.

This is an alternative, lower level solution Then the above mentioed NotifyingBlocking executor - it is probably not as ideal but will be simple to implement
If you want alot of threads on standby, then you ultimately need a mechanism for them to know when its okay to "come to life". This sounds like a case for semaphores.
Make sure that each thread allocates no unnecessary memory before it starts working. Then implement as follows :
1) create n threads on startup of the application, stored in a queue. You can Base this n on the result of Runtime.getMemory(...), rather than hard coding it.
2) also, creat a semaphore with n-k permits. Again, base this onthe amount of memory available.
3) now, have each of n-k threads periodically check if the semaphore has permits, calling Thread.sleep(...) in between checks, for example.
4) if a thread notices a permit, then update the semaphore, and acquire the permit.
If this satisfies your needs, you can go on to manage your threads using a more sophisticated polling or wait/lock mechanism later.

Parallel-processing in Java; advice needed i.e. on Runnanble/Callable interfaces

Assume that I have a set of objects that need to be analyzed in two different ways, both of which take relatively long time and involve IO-calls, I am trying to figure out how/if I could go about optimizing this part of my software, especially utilizing the multiple processors (the machine i am sitting on for ex is a 8-core i7 which almost never goes above 10% load during execution).
I am quite new to parallel-programming or multi-threading (not sure what the right term is), so I have read some of the prior questions, particularly paying attention to highly voted and informative answers. I am also in the process of going through the Oracle/Sun tutorial on concurrency.
Here's what I thought out so far;
A thread-safe collection holds the objects to be analyzed
As soon as there are objects in the collection (they come a couple at a time from a series of queries), a thread per object is started
Each specific thread takes care of the initial pre-analysis preparations; and then calls on the analyses.
The two analyses are implemented as Runnables/Callables, and thus called on by the thread when necessary.
And my questions are:
Is this a reasonable scheme, if not, how would you go about doing this?
In order to make sure things don't get out of hand, should I implement a ThreadManager or some thing of that sort, which starts and stops threads, and re-distributes them when they are complete? For example, if i have 256 objects to be analyzed, and 16 threads in total, the ThreadManager assigns the first finished thread to the 17th object to be analyzed etc.
Is there a dramatic difference between Runnable/Callable other than the fact that Callable can return a result? Otherwise should I try to implement my own interface, in that case why?
Thanks,

You could use a BlockingQueue implementation to hold your objects and spawn your threads from there. This interface is based on the producer-consumer principle. The put() method will block if your queue is full until there is some more space and the take() method will block if the queue is empty until there are some objects again in the queue.
An ExecutorService can help you manage your pool of threads.
If you are awaiting a result from your spawned threads then Callable interface is a good idea to use since you can start the computation earlier and work in your code assuming the results in Future-s. As far as the differencies with the Runnable interface, from the Callable javadoc:
The Callable interface is similar to Runnable, in that both are designed for classes whose instances are potentially executed by another thread. A Runnable, however, does not return a result and cannot throw a checked exception.
Some general things you need to consider in your quest for java concurrency:
Visibility is not coming by defacto. volatile, AtomicReference and other objects in the java.util.concurrent.atomic package are your friends.
You need to carefully ensure atomicity of compound actions using synchronization and locks.

Your idea is basically sound. However, rather than creating threads directly, or indirectly through some kind of ThreadManager of your own design, use an Executor from Java's concurrency package. It does everything you need, and other people have already taken the time to write and debug it. An executor manages a queue of tasks, so you don't need to worry about providing the threadsafe queue yourself either.
There's no difference between Callable and Runnable except that the former returns a value. Executors will handle both, and ready them the same.
It's not clear to me whether you're planning to make the preparation step a separate task to the analyses, or fold it into one of them, with that task spawning the other analysis task halfway through. I can't think of any reason to strongly prefer one to the other, but it's a choice you should think about.

The Executors provides factory methods for creating thread pools. Specifically Executors#newFixedThreadPool(int nThreads) creates a thread pool with a fixed size that utilizes an unbounded queue. Also if a thread terminates due to a failure then a new thread will be replaced in its place. So in your specific example of 256 tasks and 16 threads you would call
// create pool
ExecutorService threadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(16);
// submit task.
Runnable task = new Runnable(){};;
threadPool.submit(task);
The important question is determining the proper number of threads for you thread pool. See if this helps Efficient Number of Threads

Sounds reasonable, but it's not as trivial to implement as it may seem.
Maybe you should check the jsr166y project.
That's probably the easiest solution to your problem.