I have some old numbers from a prior experiment with 1 TB heap. Might be sufficient to say neither CMS nor G1 survived until the end of the test, which was a simple LTT load ... of a billion row plus in memory table on heap in a single regionserver, but that is a detail. :-) I might have time to retest on this same test cluster with G1.
We are not running Shenandoah in production yet. However it seems ready for pre production and I am being aggressive about testing with it. Reminds me, RedHat just did a bulk backport into their 8u tree, should rebuild the test JVM. (The line between pioneer and crazy is thin, YMMV.) On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 7:58 AM Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: 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. > >>> > >> > -- Best regards, Andrew Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's decrepit hands - A23, Crosstalk
