> Jon Stevens wrote:
> >
> > on 1/24/01 9:09 AM, "John Thorhauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > OK. I found a couple of examples like that but I wasnt sure
> how accurate
> > > that was. If this actually gives me a ballpark figure then
> it is close
> > > enough :-)
> > >
> > > So.......
> > > I would like to add another method to
> > > GlobalCacheService/TurbineGlobalCacheService that would
> > > return the current size of the cache as a long.
>
> I think that serializing the thing takes up a long time and not
> neceserily
> shows the actual RAM usage. I'd expect the serialized form to be more
> compact than live data.
>
> I vote -0. If you decide to implement it, don't forget a disclaimer :-)
>
> Maybe we should consider using weak/phantom references for the caching
> stuff.
> I don't know much about this stuff really, especially if it is JDK 1.3
> or 1.2...
>
> Rafal
>
Another thought, won't serializing the cache to memory double the amount of
memory needed. That is, serializing a 20 MB object to a byte array will
take
20 MB, and the original must still be held in memory, bringing the total to
40 MB.
Also, my use of cache would include no or very few serializable objects,
and the size of unserializable objects cannot be determined with this
method,
can it.
MT
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
