Shenandoah GC is interesting. Do you have any comparisons to CMS or G1? Are y'all running Shenandoah in production already?
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > +1, great stuff! Thanks to you for doing this testing and sharing results > with us all. > > > On 7/30/18 10:38 PM, Stack wrote: > >> Thanks Andy. Looks good. >> >> Maybe next time add -p clientbuffering=true ? >> >> Good on you, >> S >> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:55 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> A couple of notes and general observations. >>> >>> Note all instances remained up for the entire duration of testing >>> including >>> burn in (all tests ran on the same hardware), and HDFS volumes were built >>> on locally attached storage (hence C3 generation instances), so I >>> controlled as much as possible for system level variance. >>> >>> Results are quite similar among the releasing 1.x versions and >>> 1.5-SNAPSHOT. Note measurements are reported in microseconds. >>> >>> I thought 1.5-SNAPSHOT might show performance regressions, but the >>> surprise >>> is in the other direction. It seems to be better performing in the YCSB >>> scenarios than the other versions tested in most cases. >>> >>> There are general small trends toward improvement as reduction in >>> latencies >>> with the exception of workloads B and F. Workloads B and F, especially >>> when >>> run against 1.5-SNAPSHOT, may show reduced performance on >>> inserts/mutations >>> in trade for improved performance in reads/scanning. More testing needed. >>> >>
