Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2022-11-09 Thread Elliott Sims
>From a user PoV, I'd call G1 drastically friendlier than CMS in that it tends to be well-behaved under a variety of workloads and heap sizes right out of the box without the kind of dark-art tuning and overnight surprises you get with CMS. Granted the smallest heap I have now is 2GB, but that's

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2022-11-09 Thread Josh McKenzie
fwiw, the "CMS is friendlier for small heaps with C*" conclusion may no longer be accurate; a lot of work has gone into G1 since the last time we've covered the topic as a project. Nevermind the changes in C*. Lots of moving targets. On Wed, Nov 9, 2022, at 6:13 PM, Brad wrote: > The default

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2022-11-09 Thread Brad
The default garbage collector in Java 11 is G1*. *It's designed to be self-tuning, so I'd call it friendly. We have run Java 8 and 11 on G1 in production on all of our 1,000+ clusters for several years. I'd agree with Jeremiah that it's worth changing in trunk at the very least and consider

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2022-11-09 Thread Brandon Williams
> Can you define "friendlier" in the context of CMS? Friendlier to small heaps, to Jeff's point about it being much less friendly to them.

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2022-11-09 Thread Derek Chen-Becker
There's a lot of work that's gone into G1 to the point where for almost all workloads it will perform better than CMS. However, there are almost no knobs to tune (most G1 params are "advisory" and G1 will happily ignore them if it wants to), so there may not be a great replacement if people are

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2022-11-09 Thread Brandon Williams
If CMS is gone, is there a friendlier alternative to G1? On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 3:53 PM Josh McKenzie wrote: > > My recollection (and brief sleuthing now) surfaces: we've gone back and forth > on the G1 vs. CMS debate over the years and I think we settled on "it all > depends on your

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2022-11-09 Thread Josh McKenzie
My recollection (and brief sleuthing now) surfaces: we've gone back and forth on the G1 vs. CMS debate over the years and I think we settled on "it all depends on your environment, workload, and you need to tune it anyway. It might be worth having a 'default' mode that selects one of the two

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2022-11-09 Thread Jeff Jirsa
G1 you can argue for with the changes in the JDK, though it's MUCH less friendly to small heaps (e.g. probably our default simple user). Offheap memtables are different though. If someone wants to attest that offheap_objects get the same level of rigorous testing as the existing default, that'd

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2022-11-09 Thread Jeremiah D Jordan
At DataStax we’ve been shipping those optional G1 settings as the default for many years now, so I am +1 to at the very least making the change in trunk, but really I would think it fine to make it back in 4.0 and 4.1 as well. -Jeremiah > On Nov 9, 2022, at 1:32 PM, David Capwell wrote: > >

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2022-11-09 Thread David Capwell
CASSANDRA-12029/CASSANDRA-7486 I am not in favor of doing for 4.1, we spend time validating the current settings, so changing at the last minute adds risk; so rather push that to 4.2/5.0 > On Nov 9, 2022, at 11:25 AM, Brandon Williams wrote: > > CMS was deprecated in JDK 9, I don't see a

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2022-11-09 Thread Brandon Williams
CMS was deprecated in JDK 9, I don't see a good reason to follow it until it's dying breath, and we already have G1 ready in the jvm options files so this should be an easy switch, +1. Kind Regards, Brandon On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 1:22 PM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > Any objections to making these

Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

2022-11-09 Thread Mick Semb Wever
Any objections to making these changes, at the very last minute, for 4.1-rc1 ? This is CASSANDRA-12029 and CASSANDRA-7486 Provided we figure out patches for them in the next day or two.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Add SpotBugs to the build

2022-11-09 Thread David Capwell
Since there was not major pushback, ill see this as green line for JIRA, ill file later today > On Nov 8, 2022, at 9:46 AM, David Capwell wrote: > > Thanks all for the replies, I hope I am posting a summary of all the feedback > > 1) double check with legal due to LGPL > 2) need way to

JDK 20 EAb22, ZenGC EA builds, JavaFX 20 EAb5 and several heads-ups!

2022-11-09 Thread David Delabassee
Greetings, With JavaOne in Las Vegas, last month was epically busy! It was great to finally have the ability to meet and discuss the Quality Outreach program with some of you... face-to-face! This installment of the newsletter is packed as we have several heads-ups, including new