On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Kirk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 3, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > > > Hi Jan, > > > > Nice job trimming down the list of potential suspects! > > > > I think that focusing on locals is a red herring. Locals do get collected > and I can't imagine a JVM bug in that area, regardless of the OS, but I have > a suspicion your loop is doing some side effects which are causing some > other bigger objects to be retained. Sadly, this hypothesis seems to be > invalidated by the fact that your code works properly on non-Windows JVM's, > but it's not a 100% certainty yet. > > > > Well, having the same code leak in Windows and not in Linux is very much > smells like a bug. Yes, but I was going with Occam's razor here: the bug is more likely to be in applicative code (e.g. native JDBC drivers, like you suggested) than in the JVM. Obviously, you need to keep both in mind until you've ruled one out. -- Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
