At 5:50 PM -0500 2/18/02, 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.. 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

Incremental GC's usually have less work to do, since most objects
die young. Thus, there are fewer objects to trace and fewer bytes to
move during compaction. A full GC has to trace all the objects
in the object memory and, if an object low in memory has died, it
must move all the objects above that object down during compaction.

	-- John