> After re-reading my post, what I meant to say is that I switched from > Serializing cache provider to ConcurrentLinkedHash cache provider and then > saw better performance, but still far worse than no caching at all: > > - no caching at all : 25-30ms > - with Serializing provider : 1300+ms > - with Concurrent provider : 500ms > > 100% cache hit rate. ParNew is the only stat that I see out of line, so > seems like still a lot of copying
In general, if you want to get to the bottom of this stuff and you think GC is involved, always run with -XX:+PrintGC -XX:+PrintGCDetails -XX:+PrintGCTimeStamps -XX:+PrintGCDateStamps so that the GC activity can be observed. 1300+ should not be GC unless you are having fallbacks to full GC:s (would be possible to see with gc logging) and it should definitely be possible to avoid full gc:s being extremely common (but eliminating them entirely may not be possible). -- / Peter Schuller (@scode, http://worldmodscode.wordpress.com)
