I think 1GB is reasonable, and while I run with more if I have it, I don't have any apps or test suites that will actually run out of heap with 1GB. My JRuby CI system tests our Rails apps with 1GB.
Wishing for the zillionth time that the JVM had a "target heap" setting :-) On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter <head...@headius.com>wrote: > I was thinking of bumping to 1GB. > > A 32-bit JVM can't go higher than a 4GB process space, and typically > you don't go above 2GB heap there in case there's a lot of native > memory that might push it close to the 32-bit process limit. So I > think we'd be safest halving that and doing 1GB, which would be enough > for the vast majority of uses, but not so large it would commonly > exceed available memory on a typical desktop or server. > > FWIW, my reason for increasing it may be invalid now...I didn't like > that installing the TorqueBox 2.0 gems required bumping up -Xmx, but > it turns out there's an ugly workaround in RubyGems to blame. A tiny > patch by nahi and torquebox-server installs fine without the memory > bump. So I'm back on the fence about increasing it, but I think > perhaps it's not unreasonable. > > For a historical perspective...we bumped it to 500MB in May of 2008 > (5b0dec8) and at the time it seemed like a lot. These days, everyone > has several GB on their desktops and double-digit GB on their servers, > so perhaps it's a reasonable time to bump it up. > > commit 5b0dec89fd1c3abb9d6a0d9e57f5060703f05d73 > Author: Charles Oliver Nutter <head...@headius.com> > Date: Sat May 24 09:14:03 2008 +0000 > > Fix for JRUBY-1582, allow setting JAVA_MEM and JAVA_STACK as env > vars. Also bumped max mem up to 500MB since some 64-bit systems are > showing higher memory use for big gem installs. > > Incidentally...we might have been able to avoid this bump even then, > since as noted in the commit it was *also* intended to work around > RubyGems bloat. > > - Charlie > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Rob Heittman > <rob.heitt...@solertium.com> wrote: > > I love the idea of an increase. What did you have in mind for a new > value? > > I've rewritten this email a dozen times now trying to suggest a good > default > > and can't convince myself of any ideal value. All my actual JRuby apps > use > > many-many GB of heap, which is why they're JRuby apps ... and I don't > feel > > too bad about having to set those limits myself in accordance with the > > capacity of the system ... so I have no sound proposal. > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:34 PM, anildigi...@gmail.com > > <anildigi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Yeah, > >> > >> I think bumping up default -Xmx would be good. Almost every Rails app I > >> have worked needed to bump up the default -Xmx manually. Please make it > >> happen :D > >> > >> -- > >> Best, > >> Anil > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter > >> <head...@headius.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> I have been wondering if we shouldn't just bump up the default -Xmx > >>> max heap size we allow in the JRuby executable. I know the JVM has a > >>> tendency to want to grow the heap, but few things are as frustrating > >>> as having some long-running process hit the heap max and die. > >>> > >>> Thoughts? Concerns? > >>> > >>> - Charlie > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > >>> > >>> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > >
