My Xmx and Xms are both 7.5GB. However, I never see the heap usage
reach past 5.5. Think it is still a good idea to increase the heap?
Not necessarily. I thought you had a max heap of 5.5, in which case a
live set of 4 gb after a completed cms pass seemed pretty high. Seems
more reasonable if
Java also enjoys using all the memory your allocate and the Garbage
collection does not give it back unless it needs to.
This only explains why it never shrinks in top, not increased heap
usage (which is presumably the memtables/key/row caches already
mentioned).
--
/ Peter Schuller
Previously, mark-and-sweep would run around 5.5GB, and would cut heap
usage to 4GB. Now, it still runs at 5.5GB, but it shrinks all the way
down to 2GB used. This behavior was consistent in every machine I
increased read-concurrent on.
So each full CMS cycles brings it down to 4 on a maximum
My Xmx and Xms are both 7.5GB. However, I never see the heap usage
reach past 5.5. Think it is still a good idea to increase the heap?
Thanks,
Jason
On Apr 2, 2:45 am, Peter Schuller peter.schul...@infidyne.com wrote:
Previously, mark-and-sweep would run around 5.5GB, and would cut heap
After increasing read concurrency from 8 to 64, GC mark-and-sweep was
suddenly able to reclaim much more memory than it previously did.
Previously, mark-and-sweep would run around 5.5GB, and would cut heap
usage to 4GB. Now, it still runs at 5.5GB, but it shrinks all the way
down to 2GB used.
On further analysis, it looks like this behavior occurs when a node is
simply restarted. Is that normal behavior? If mark-and-sweep becomes
less and less effective over time, does that suggest an issue with GC,
or an issue with memory use?
On Apr 1, 8:21 pm, Jason Harvey alie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Jason Harvey alie...@gmail.com wrote:
On further analysis, it looks like this behavior occurs when a node is
simply restarted. Is that normal behavior? If mark-and-sweep becomes
less and less effective over time, does that suggest an issue with GC,
or an issue
Ah, that would probably explain it. Thanks!
On Apr 1, 8:49 pm, Edward Capriolo edlinuxg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Jason Harvey alie...@gmail.com wrote:
On further analysis, it looks like this behavior occurs when a node is
simply restarted. Is that normal behavior?
