On Oct 7, 2005, at 1:32 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:
>
> If you do the fullGC, then the fork and snapshot which also does a  
> fullGC, then cleans up context records and information about  
> primitive linkups you
> should find that the amount of memory altered is much less. The  
> problem with doing a snapshot at any point is that it most likely  
> will move *most* memory
> in the image as it compacts the image as a result of the full GC.  
> Back to Back full GCs won't move anything (depending on if the  
> interpreter runs between calls).
> Thus altering much less memory.

Ok.  That's definitely the safest option...

> However isn't there a cost here in the parent process of doing the  
> fullGC, those take time.

Yep.  But relatively little time compared to a full snapshot, so it's  
still a win.

Avi