-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ed,
On 2/9/2011 3:01 PM, Edward Bicker wrote:
I agree, I have enjoying Charles remarks and comments as well.
I say to PID, he needs to PIDDLE off and leave us alone.
/Ed
Mod down: troll. :(
Pid was right: you did hijack the thread.
He wasn't
On 2/9/11 8:01 PM, Edward Bicker wrote:
I agree, I have enjoying Charles remarks and comments as well.
I say to PID, he needs to PIDDLE off and leave us alone.
/Ed
// eds_sense_of_humor is a little-known but primitive type
char *str = (char *)malloc(sizeof(eds_sense_of_humor));
free(str);
: Is IBM Right About Java?
On 2/9/11 8:01 PM, Edward Bicker wrote:
I agree, I have enjoying Charles remarks and comments as well.
I say to PID, he needs to PIDDLE off and leave us alone.
/Ed
// eds_sense_of_humor is a little-known but primitive type
char *str = (char *)malloc(sizeof
On 9 February 2011 01:36, Caldarale, Charles R
chuck.caldar...@unisys.comwrote:
The JVM always reserves the maximum heap size as virtual space, but does
not allocate more of the heap than the current limit; the limit will be
adjusted up or down within the -Xms : -Xmx range as load dictates.
I agree, I have enjoying Charles remarks and comments as well.
I say to PID, he needs to PIDDLE off and leave us alone.
/Ed
-Original Message-
From: Jordan Michaels jor...@viviotech.net
Sent: Feb 8, 2011 3:39 PM
To: Tomcat Users List users@tomcat.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is IBM Right
Saw this statement on an IBM web site:
Most JVMs grow towards the upper heap limit (-Xmx/-mx options) when
more memory is required, and do not return memory to the operating
system, even if the memory is no longer needed, until the JVM process
terminates.
Is this true? If thought returning
From: Joseph Morgan [mailto:joseph.mor...@ignitesales.com]
Subject: RE: Is IBM Right About Java?
if the server experiences a hit on load and increases the
heap, it remains at that level.
This is controlled by the -Xms setting; if your current heap is less than -Xms,
GC will not return
Thanks for the input, everyone. I see there is mostly agreement on this
question. Once the OS allocates memory to the JVM, the OS never gets it
back. GC does not return memory to the OS.
This is unfortunate behavior for those of us who stack multiple
instances on tomcat/java on the same server as
From: Robinson, Eric [mailto:eric.robin...@psmnv.com]
Subject: RE: Is IBM Right About Java?
I would like to set all JVMs to -Xms=32M -Xmx=512M and let the
system figure out how much memory each instance really needs.
That should work, at the expense of some thrashing of the heap size
I would like to set all JVMs to -Xms=32M -Xmx=512M and let
the system
figure out how much memory each instance really needs.
That should work, at the expense of some thrashing of the
heap size as the load waxes and wanes.
As I understand it, it would actually not work because
On 2/8/2011 12:27 PM, Robinson, Eric wrote:
I would like to set all JVMs to -Xms=32M -Xmx=512M and let
the system
figure out how much memory each instance really needs.
That should work, at the expense of some thrashing of the
heap size as the load waxes and wanes.
As I understand it, it
On 2/8/2011 12:27 PM, Robinson, Eric wrote:
I would like to set all JVMs to -Xms=32M -Xmx=512M and let
the system
figure out how much memory each instance really needs.
That should work, at the expense of some thrashing of the
heap size
as the load waxes and wanes.
As I
From: Robinson, Eric [mailto:eric.robin...@psmnv.com]
Subject: RE: Is IBM Right About Java?
As I understand it, it would actually not work because instances that
peak at 512M but then go back down to, say, 128M, would still never
return the unused memory to the OS so it can be used by other
Users List
Subject: RE: Is IBM Right About Java?
From: Robinson, Eric [mailto:eric.robin...@psmnv.com]
Subject: RE: Is IBM Right About Java?
As I understand it, it would actually not work because instances that
peak at 512M but then go back down to, say, 128M, would still never
return
From: Joseph Morgan [mailto:joseph.mor...@ignitesales.com]
Subject: RE: Is IBM Right About Java?
So are you saying it will reduce the upper consumed heap?
It should, if you reduce the -Xms value. Might take a while to observe the
effect.
Our core load is from 9am - 7pm CST, and we have
On 2/8/11 4:27 PM, Robinson, Eric wrote:
Saw this statement on an IBM web site:
Please don't hijack threads.
Start a new email to the list, just like you would to a person.
p
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 2/8/11 4:27 PM, Robinson, Eric wrote:
Saw this statement on an IBM web site:
Please don't hijack threads.
Start a new email to the list, just like you would to a person.
p
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
As I understand it, it would actually not work because
instances that
peak at 512M but then go back down to, say, 128M, would still never
return the unused memory to the OS so it can be used by
other instances.
Not true - that's the whole point of the -Xms setting. If GC
can
pid's using a mail client that uses header information to track threads.
So, if you started this thread by hitting reply to an existing topic
then changed the subject and content, the header thread tracking info
will still be present. Thus, to him, it will appear as though you
hijacked a
pid's using a mail client that uses header information to
track threads.
So, if you started this thread by hitting reply to an
existing topic then changed the subject and content, the
header thread tracking info will still be present. Thus, to
him, it will appear as though you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric,
On 2/8/2011 3:16 PM, Robinson, Eric wrote:
This is great feedback, Chuck. Right now we have 200+ instances running
on the same server, most of which are set to 64MB min and max heap. Like
I daid, we do not see OOM messages or paging, and top
Chris,
On 2/8/2011 3:16 PM, Robinson, Eric wrote:
This is great feedback, Chuck. Right now we have 200+ instances
running on the same server, most of which are set to 64MB
min and max
heap. Like I daid, we do not see OOM messages or paging,
and top shows
about 27GB of 32GB in use.
2011/2/8 Robinson, Eric eric.robin...@psmnv.com
Obviously I need to understand this better. If all instances are set to
-Xmx512M and then one instance peaks to 512M and even tries to go above
that (and therefore generates an OOME) how does that impact the other
instances? Does an OOME mean
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel,
On 2/8/2011 4:56 PM, Daniel Savard wrote:
However, increasing this limit for all instances may lead to a
situation where enough instances are claiming more memory at the same
time and beyond the physical memory available.
Exactly. With
Andre,
Like, what if they come back next week and say that now they
need 1 GB heap per instance ?
Sometimes I lose sleep thinking about that scenario. :-)
--Eric
Disclaimer - February 8, 2011
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for
From: David kerber [mailto:dcker...@verizon.net]
Subject: Re: Is IBM Right About Java?
I don't know, but always assumed that GC made the cleared memory
available for the JVM to use for other things, not the OS.
Not really. The JVM always reserves the maximum heap size as virtual space
26 matches
Mail list logo
