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