On Monday, February 18, 2002, at 11:50 PM, Scott A Crosby wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Marcel Weiher wrote:
>
>>
>> On Monday, February 18, 2002, at 09:17 PM, Scott A Crosby wrote:
>>
>>> Roughly, I profile it at:
>>>
>>>  Can GC 60mb in 170ms, or about 360mb (6m objects) in a second.
>>
>> Hmm....  170 ms * 6 = 1020 ms, or about a second.  If these numbers are
>> accurate, there doesn't seem to be any overall performance benefit from
>> delaying the GC (apart from completely avoiding it in a specific period
>> of time).  Or very likely I am missing something.
>
> These are raw numbers, and inconsistent with each other..

Well do we have consistent numbers anywhere?  If the numbers are so 
inconsistent, what conclusions are we drawing from them?

> I get fullGC about 4x-8x slower than a incrGC on the same number of 
> bytes.
>
>  Can incrGC 300MB in 1600ms.
>  Can fullGC 20MB in 400ms

Sure.  So?  How does the difference between incremental and full GC 
relate to my observation that the numbers posted above show a linear 
relationship.

> We *know* that increasing these parameters makes macroBenchmarks go
> faster.

We *really* do?

>  It also avoids methodCache and atCache flushes, which will slow
> down computation. (This also makes it more feasible to have much larger
> method&at caches.)

Hmm...

Marcel