Simon, Would a more predictable GC or a faster GC be better in your case? (Of course, both would be nice.)
/jve On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Simon Cranshaw <simon.crans...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Pavel Perikov <peri...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Did you really seen 100ms pauses?! I never did extensive research on this >> but my numbers are rather in microseconds range (below 1ms). What causes >> such a long garbage collection? Lots of allocated and long-living objects? >> >> > I am using an automated options trading system written in Haskell. I'm > more on the business side than the technical side of the issues so I'm not > clear on all the details. I can confirm that without tweaking the RTS > settings we were seeing over 100ms GC pauses. I've mainly been trying to > minimise our overall response time and we were able to improve this by > increasing the allocation area with -A. I think this brought GC well under > 100ms. We are still working on analysis of this. > > I can also confirm, as others seem to have found, that under 6.12 the > parallel GC seemed to make things much worse. I am always turning it off > with -qg. If there is a project to improve performance of the GC I could be > interested to contribute. > > Simon Cranshaw > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe