Hello all,

I remember a post not too long ago talking about the JVM and it's max
size on a windows 32bit server having a celing of 1.3gb.  We've got a
server that has 3gb of ram, and about 1.8gb of that is going unused even
under peak load.  One of my colleagues decided to up the -XmxNx value of
the JVM to 2gb to attempt to allocate more memory and increase
performance.  This caused CF to fail on startup, and once the setting
was lowered, CF started fine again.  As is understand it there are three
major settings to tweak in the JVM (where N is the memory size) and
please forgive me as I'm new to JVM configuration:

 

-XmsNm - minimum GC size

-XmxNm - maximum GC size

-XX:MaxPermSize=Nm - the maximum permanent size

 

For our application we have quite a large number of objects stored in
the application scope and would like to increase the amount of ram
allocated to jrun / JVM.  Am I correct in that increasing the
MaxPermSize from its default of 128m to a larger amount (say 512m) will
increase the available memory of the JVM for objects being stored for a
much longer period of time (like those in application scope)?  Our
current settings for our JVM are:

 

-Xms512m

-Xmx1024m

-XX:MaxPermSize=128m

 

We are not getting a ton of GC that is degrading performance, but we
seem to be having the system slow down dramatically when JRun / JVM hits
the 1gb mark.  So our thought was to raise the amount of memory in the
JVM available to JRun.  Am I right in my understanding of the
differences in the settings?

 

Rich Kroll



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four 
times a year.
http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly

Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:254604
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

Reply via email to