Hi Ryan, *hfile.block.cache.size = 0, GC log:* 2010-10-21T15:53:27.486+0800: 1428.317: [GC [PSYoungGen: 18270K->320K(17728K)] 62008K->44066K(61696K), *0.0043520 secs*] [Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=0.00 secs] 2010-10-21T15:53:27.933+0800: 1428.764: [GC [PSYoungGen: 17641K->256K(17024K)] 61386K->44025K(60992K), *0.0036030 secs*] [Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=0.00 secs] 2010-10-21T15:53:28.380+0800: 1429.212: [GC [PSYoungGen: 17024K->288K(19648K)] 60793K->44130K(63616K), *0.0044410 secs*] [Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=0.01 secs] 2010-10-21T15:53:28.385+0800: 1429.216: [Full GC [PSYoungGen: 288K->0K(19648K)] [PSOldGen: 43841K->32920K(41536K)] 44130K->32920K(61184K) [PSPermGen: 15684K->15683K(24640K)], *0.0480800 secs*] [Times: user=0.05 sys=0.00, real=0.05 secs]
*hfile.block.cache.size = 0.2, GC log:* 2010-10-21T16:18:31.884+0800: 1234.166: [GC [PSYoungGen: 469577K->182750K(534208K)] 1183254K->1013795K(1663424K), *0.1265180 secs*] [Times: user=0.49 sys=0.00, real=0.13 secs] 2010-10-21T16:18:56.837+0800: 1259.119: [GC [PSYoungGen: 460382K->179115K(451392K)] 1291427K->1116923K(1580608K), *0.1231190 secs*] [Times: user=0.48 sys=0.00, real=0.13 secs] 2010-10-21T16:19:20.121+0800: 1282.403: [GC [PSYoungGen: 451371K->175649K(510016K)] 1389179K->1206321K(1639232K), *0.1153410 secs*] [Times: user=0.31 sys=0.01, real=0.11 secs] 2010-10-21T16:19:20.236+0800: 1282.518: [Full GC [PSYoungGen: 175649K->0K(510016K)] [PSOldGen: 1030672K->582437K(1179200K)] 1206321K->582437K(1689216K) [PSPermGen: 16041K->16041K(21248K)], *0.2538730 secs*] [Times: user=0.26 sys=0.00, real=0.26 secs] hfile.block.cache.size = 0: avg. per minor gc ~ *4ms* avg. per full gc ~ *50ms* hfile.block.cache.size = 0.2: avg. per minor gc ~* 120ms* avg. per full gc ~ *250ms * Does it mean that because I got a low hit ratio in random read, so the LruBlockCache object creates too many CachedBlock objects? Thanks. Shen On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Ryan Rawson <[email protected]> wrote: > block cache invalidation is done async and isnt done inline, so that > shouldn't be an issue. > > could be related to GC... if you could produce and compare GC logs > that'd be helpful. > >
