Re: IBM PPC 1.4.1 Question
{ > Has anyone been able to get the newly released 1.4.1 development kit from
{ > IBM to work.
{
{ When I last looked at it it wasn't available for ppc - thanks for that.
{
{ > I get core dumps whenever I run it.
According to the IBM ReadMe (sdkguide.lnxia32.htm) of the IBM 1.4.1
JVM for Linux IA32, they have only tested their 1.4.0 JVM on:
SLES 7
SLES 7 64-bit (31-bit compatibility mode)
SuSE 8.0
Red Hat Advanced Server
Red Hat 7.3
Turbolinux 7 Server
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/linux/tested.html
They say nothing about the 1.4.1 JVM.
I think they should update this page and -maybe- the version of their
test machines.
Amicalement/Regards,
Tony Reix
Carpe Diem
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM PPC 1.4.1 Question
Oooops.
I just realized you were talking of IBM JVM 1.4.1 on PPC. not on IA32.
Sorry.
But their information page about IBM Linux JVMs is still not up-to-date ...
Regards,
Tony
{ { > Has anyone been able to get the newly released 1.4.1 development kit from
{ { > IBM to work.
{ {
{ { When I last looked at it it wasn't available for ppc - thanks for that.
{ {
{ { > I get core dumps whenever I run it.
{
{
{ According to the IBM ReadMe (sdkguide.lnxia32.htm) of the IBM 1.4.1
{ JVM for Linux IA32, they have only tested their 1.4.0 JVM on:
{
{ SLES 7
{ SLES 7 64-bit (31-bit compatibility mode)
{ SuSE 8.0
{ Red Hat Advanced Server
{ Red Hat 7.3
{ Turbolinux 7 Server
{
{ http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/linux/tested.html
{
{ They say nothing about the 1.4.1 JVM.
{ I think they should update this page and -maybe- the version of their
{ test machines.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to get better performances from a linux plateforme ?
{ On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 08:15, Damien Lecan wrote:
{ > Hello,
{ >
{ > I am trying to get better performances from a linux plateforme and I am
{ > a little bit disappointed.
{ >
{ > I am testing a full J2EE application, ie 3 physical layers
{ > (apache/tomcat <=> jboss <=> oracle db ; 3 servers), and this is very
{ > slow on linux ... compared to the same plateforme on Windows 2000 server
{ > (except for the db, this a HP server for both tests).
{ >
{ > Every servers are equiped with JVM SUN 1.4.1_01 and Linux is RedHat 7.3,
{ > not customized.
{ >
{ > I know I could try other VM, but I am wondering if the problem comes
{ > from the OS or from the VM (on windows, performances are twice better),
{ > or from both ?
{ >
{ > What should I modify on my redhat ? Should I use IBM ou Blackdown VM ?
{ >
{ > Thanks for your help, I really would like to use linux instead of
{ > windows for servers ...
Hi Damien,
Since I've made some comparison between different JVMs and different
machines and O.S., I may provide you with some figures.
First, check that your machines are EXACTLY identical. A bigger
cache leads to much better performances (32K -> 512K cache : ~ +30% perf)
with Java benchmarks.
I've used the following benchmarks:
VolanoMarkhttp://www.volano.com/report/index.html
~ 800 threads
SPECjbb2000 http://www.spec.org/osg/jbb2000/
Very few threads but heavy Java work
On a 2xPentiumIII (1.3 GHz with 512 KB of cache), with RedHat 7.3 :
VolanoMark :
- BEA JRockit 8.1 is ~10Km/s
- Sun 1.4.2 beta is ~17Km/s
- IBM 1.4.0 is ~21Km/s
SPECjbb2000:
- BEA JRockit 8.1 : hang
- Sun 1.4.2 beta is ~20Kops/s
- IBM 1.4.0 is ~22Kops/s
So, since your application should be a mix of many threads and heavy
Java run, you should try IBM JVM (1.4.1 is now available).
That also means: the less threads your JVM is running, the better should
be the performances. How many threads are you running ?
This was done with a Linux kernel 2.4.18 SMP .
Kernel 2.6 should provide better results and you should experiment with it.
Take care that JVM results with mono-CPU linux are often different
from results with multi-CPU. Mainly for BEA JRockit (thinthreads).
I haven't experimented with BlackDown, but -based on Volano Report- it
should not be as good as Sun and IBM JVMs.
When running Sun JVM, the following options led to best results with
VolanoMark :
-server -Xbatch -XXAgressiveHeap
With IBM JVM, no options gave the best results.
NPTL does NOT provide better performances for Java. It only (but
that's VERY valuable) provides MUCH BETTER reliability.
Linux 2.4 is far from being an industrial O.S. for heavy load.
Waiting for 2.6 to see how much progress has been done.
When comparing Linux and AIX on the same hardware (4xPPC, same IBM JVM 1.3.1) :
VolanoMark :
- Linux kernel 2.4 is ~17K
- AIX 5Lis ~30K
That means that Linux 2.4 is far to be as optimized for heavy multi-threading
as old Unix O.S. (like AIX, HP-UX, Solaris) are. I think Windows also
is more optimized than Linux 2.4 .
That may explain (some part of) the difference you saw between Linux and Windows.
Other figures from official SPECjbb2000 results show that Linux SMP on IA32
is much less scalable (88 %) than AIX/PPC (100%) or other O.S. (2xCPU -> 4xCPU).
You should also experiment with JOnAS (ObjectWeb, OpenSource) instead of JBoss.
Regards,
Tony Reix
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 1.3, kernel 2.6, signals
Hi Nicole,
{ ...
{ I upgraded my kernel to version 2.6, and now it looks like these signals
{ aren't being caught anymore -- sort of.
{ ...
{ I've been using blackdown 1.3.1, but as a test I switched to Sun's
{ 1.3.1_10 and am still having the same problem.
{ ...
{ I assumed the problem is related to NPTL, so I have set the
{ LD_ASSUME_KERNEL variable to both "2.2.5" and "2.4.1" to no avail. I
{ thought perhaps I needed to upgrade my libc6, but I don't know that that
{ is the case. Right now it's running 2.2.5-11.5.
{
{ Any ideas ? I'll try anything at this point, I'd really like to keep my
{ kernel. Even if I just have the answer and decide to stick with 2.4 for
{ now, I'd at least like to know :o)
Sebastien and my-self are involved in improving the stability of NPTL,
and we plan to provide a trace mechanism for NPTL.
So we are very interested in understanding and trying to fix your
problem that seems not to be related to a JVM.
We have been said that some signals are lost by NPTL.
Using old LinuxThreads (LD_ASSUME_KERNEL) did not fix your problem,
probably because LinuxThreads was also known to loose signals ...
Or maybe the problem is in the kernel ...
Would it be possible for you to extract the code that produces the
problem and provide a very small program we could use in our labs
in order to reproduce the problem with our environment (RedHat 9,
last 2.6 kernel version, last NPTL version) ?
Thanks,
Amicalement/Regards,
Tony Reix
Carpe Diem
****
Name: Tony Reix
Company:Bull SA : AIX/Linux R&D
EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web-Site: http://www-frec.bull.com
Address:BULL, 1 rue de Provence, BP 208, 38432 Echirolles Cedex, France
Phone 04 76 29 72 67 (France), 33 4 76 29 72 67
Fax:04 76 29 76 00 (France), 33 4 76 29 76 00
Bull Phone: 229-7267
Bull Address: FREC B1-204 Office: B1-183
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 1.3, kernel 2.6, signals
Hi Nicole,
{ ...
{ I will be constructing a basic application that just does the signal
{ handling similar to my application so I can use it to test.
Seems your problem is not easy to understand ...
Let us know when you have built such a basic application. At that
time we'll try to reproduce it there, probably with the Sun or IBM JVMs.
Did you try with IBM JVM ?
Thanks for helping stabilizing NPTL.
Amicalement/Regards,
Tony Reix
Carpe Diem
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
