On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:34 AM, rodgerd
rodg...@israel.diaspora.gen.nz wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:53:21 +0200, Rob van der Heij
rvdh...@velocity-software.com wrote:
If it is non-blocking, why would one be concerned about the elapsed
time of GC and what would be the interest of having
unless pursuant to explicit written agreement
or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such
purpose.
From:
Rob van der Heij rvdh...@velocity-software.com
To:
LINUX-390@vm.marist.edu
Date:
04/26/2011 05:34 AM
Subject:
Re: multipl cpu's
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:34 AM
Can some of you weigh in on the merits (demerits) of defining multiple CPU's to
virtual Linux boxes? We are heavy WebSphere and have gotten differing opinions.
Thank you,
David M. Dean
Information Systems
BlueCross BlueShield Tennnessee
-
On 4/25/2011 at 09:34 AM, Dean, David (I/S) david_d...@bcbst.com wrote:
Can some of you weigh in on the merits (demerits) of defining multiple CPU's
to virtual Linux boxes? We are heavy WebSphere and have gotten differing
opinions.
The typical advice is that if you are driving a single
Hello,
We are a SAP shop and do not run WebSphere. However we do run some SAP
Java instances. On some of those systems, we have found it beneficial
to define two CPUS, and let the garbage collector know about it.
Depending on the size of your heap, sometimes the the garbage collection
times
The generic rules of thumb:
1. Don't define more virtual cpus than you have real available.
2. Don't define more virtual cpus than you need.
With Websphere:
Two cpus or more are best. Websphere has a process, in which two tasks talk to
each other. If each process has a cpu then they don't
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ron Foster at Baldor-IS
rfos...@baldor.com wrote:
We are a SAP shop and do not run WebSphere. However we do run some SAP
Java instances. On some of those systems, we have found it beneficial
to define two CPUS, and let the garbage collector know about it.
One of the problems with Java Garbage Collection is that it halts
other work in the JVM for the duration of the GC (because you're
moving stuff around, you can't have people trying to use it). While GC
has improved over time to reduce the amount of objects handled during
each scan, my
Schoeberl and Puffitsch for one produced a mostly non blocking
garbage
collection for Java which only blocks the threads it needs and only
at the
points it has to. Rather useful for multi-threaded systems.
If it is non-blocking, why would one be concerned about the elapsed
time of GC
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
One of the problems with Java Garbage Collection is that it halts
other work in the JVM for the duration of the GC (because you're
moving stuff around, you can't have people trying to use it). While GC
has improved over
:
Re: multipl cpu's
One of the problems with Java Garbage Collection is that it halts
other work in the JVM for the duration of the GC (because you're
moving stuff around, you can't have people trying to use it). While GC
has improved over time to reduce the amount of objects handled during
Schoeberl and Puffitsch for one produced a mostly non blocking garbage
collection for Java which only blocks the threads it needs and only at the
points it has to. Rather useful for multi-threaded systems.
If it is non-blocking, why would one be concerned about the elapsed
time of GC and
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:34:25 -0400, Dean, David (I/S)
david_d...@bcbst.com wrote:
Can some of you weigh in on the merits (demerits) of defining multiple
CPU's to virtual Linux boxes? We are heavy WebSphere and have gotten
differing opinions.
For what it's worth we generally allocate vCPUs in
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:53:21 +0200, Rob van der Heij
rvdh...@velocity-software.com wrote:
If it is non-blocking, why would one be concerned about the elapsed
time of GC and what would be the interest of having multiple threads
working in parallel on GC. Or would you really have allocation
14 matches
Mail list logo
