> From: Peter Hargreaves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Hi Vadim, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>From: Peter Hargreaves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > >>*) If the percent to reduce storage is set to 10%, it fails to remove > >>any when the number of items are below 10. The number of items to be > >>removed needs rounding upwards. Why not remove a fixed number of items > >>instead of a percentage? (My idea and now I think it was wrong!!) > >> > > > > +1 on rounding up, > > -1 on removing percentage. Applications highly differ on number of > > objects and average size of the object. Percentage gives the advantage > > to have generic configuration. If this is not over-configuration, number > > of objects to remove may be configured with or without percent sign: > > > > <parameter name="reduceby" value="10%"/> > > <parameter name="reduceby" value="100"/> > > > My thinking is this. Ideally you want to remove a defined number of > bytes from the stores. If you can guess the average size of an item then > by removing a defined number of items you are removing an approximate > number of bytes.
That's when you tune for one particular application - then yes. If you try to put something that works well when you have 200 huge objects, and when you have 20000 tiny one - I think defined number won't work. What can you suggest here? I hoped that percentage may work for these situations. > When I tried removing a percentage, I found that successive attempts > freed up less and less storage This makes sence, I did not thought of it this way... > then my system ran out of memory before the store was empty. ...but on the other hand: it means that you have leaks in some other place! May be you will want to find them first before blaming memory store ;) It may be not leaks, but uncontrolled memory consumption by some business logic of your site. Then why not just increase free-memory parameter to factor in these requirements? > The trouble with convincing people is that you have to unconvince them > if you change you mind ;-) :) > >>Ideally - low memory should be detected by some sort of interrupt or > >>exception rather than by polling. > >> > > > > AFAIK, when you get an exception it's already late to take any action. > > Ah, but what about the undo command. Or the retrospective exception > handler. You know the one I mean - "It was left at that previous junction". > > Seriously though. Are there any plans for java to include a mechanism > that tells folks when memory is getting low. Surely lots of people have > this problem. Don't know. Search bug database - may be there is already couple of requests in there. Regards, Vadim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
