Hmm, looks like the garbage collector got hungry again:
1093,741,664,672 bytes allocated in the heap
1006,759,632,160 bytes copied during GC (scavenged)
72,181,353,728 bytes copied during GC (not scavenged)
400,940,412 bytes maximum residency (8853 sample(s))
76353 collections in
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 03:56:20PM +1000, Thomas Conway wrote:
Well, not quite, but look at the following:
118,342,689,824 bytes allocated in the heap
144,831,738,780 bytes copied during GC (scavenged)
335,086,064 bytes copied during GC (not scavenged)
255,257,516 bytes maximum residency
[I assume this was meant to go to the list as well, so I'm adding it
back to the CCs]
On 7/3/07, Thomas Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It occurs to me that tweaking the GC parameters can probably make a
big difference: is starting with a bigger heap likely to help, or more
generations? My
On 7/3/07, Thomas Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, so a bit of a tweak of the RTS flags, I got a DRAMATIC improvement:
239,434,077,460 bytes allocated in the heap
9,034,063,712 bytes copied during GC (scavenged)
132,748,740 bytes copied during GC (not scavenged)
226,313,736 bytes maximum
Well, not quite, but look at the following:
118,342,689,824 bytes allocated in the heap
144,831,738,780 bytes copied during GC (scavenged)
335,086,064 bytes copied during GC (not scavenged)
255,257,516 bytes maximum residency (42 sample(s))
222884 collections in generation 0 (3891.90s)
On 7/3/07, Thomas Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, not quite, but look at the following:
118,342,689,824 bytes allocated in the heap
144,831,738,780 bytes copied during GC (scavenged)
335,086,064 bytes copied during GC (not scavenged)
255,257,516 bytes maximum residency (42 sample(s))
