Florian Weimer wrote: > * Andrew Haley: > >> Florian Weimer wrote: >>> * Andrew Haley: >>> >>>>> The latter leads to problems if the maximum heap size is relatively large. >>>>> Currently, -Xmx is reserved, and some software fails to build on >>>>> vm.overcommit_memory systems due to this. >>>> I don't get it. Why would overcommit cause some software to fail to >>>> build? I can understand it failing if overcommit was turned off. >>> Sorry, I meant to write "vm.overcommit_memory=2". >> Well, the system is doing what the user asked it to do. -Xmx means >> "please reserve this memory for me, Hal"; if the memory isn't there, >> then it's surely quite reasonable for Hal to respond "I'm sorry Dave, >> I can't do that." > > Well, I thought -Xms means that. An untuned VM is not expected to hit > the -Xmx limit. At least this is what I see in practice, and to me > this is the distinction expressed between the -Xmx and -Xms flags.
I am very sorry, "-Xmx" was a typo, or perhaps a thinko. In my original posting -- which was trimmed -- I said > It makes more sense to allocate all the -Xms size immediately. and I thought you were disagreeing with me, but: > Reserving the -Xms heap portion does make sense, though. you weren't. Andrew.
