Looks normal to me considering the platform. It's not so much a GC as the machine was unavailable for more than 2 minutes since there's no user or sys CPU involved.
J-D On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Fuad Efendi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > > How to explain that: > > 2011-08-08T19:02:24.947+0000: 14564.360: [GC 14564.360: [ParNew: > 52681K->6528K(59008K), 158.6620830 secs] 2285054K->2240073K(4187776K) > icms_dc=0 , 158.6622690 secs] [Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=158.65 secs] > Total time for which application threads were stopped: 158.6632510 seconds > > > QUESTION: How can? Zero, Zero, and real=158 seconds?!! > > > However, in most cases (99.99%) I have > 2011-08-08T18:55:20.811+0000: 14140.225: [GC 14140.225: [ParNew: > 54381K->2110K(59008K), 0.0286450 secs] 1651815K->1599544K(4187776K) > icms_dc=0 , 0.0287720 secs] [Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=0.03 secs] > Total time for which application threads were stopped: 0.0296330 seconds > 2011-08-08T18:55:21.181+0000: 14140.594: [GC 14140.594: [ParNew: > 54588K->3056K(59008K), 0.0388800 secs] 1652022K->1600490K(4187776K) > icms_dc=0 , 0.0390230 secs] [Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=0.04 secs] > Total time for which application threads were stopped: 0.0398510 seconds > 2011-08-08T18:55:21.527+0000: 14140.940: [GC 14140.940: [ParNew: > 55536K->4812K(59008K), 0.0326740 secs] 1652970K->1602247K(4187776K) > icms_dc=0 , 0.0328500 secs] [Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=0.04 secs] > Total time for which application threads were stopped: 0.0338200 seconds > 2011-08-08T18:55:21.868+0000: 14141.281: [GC 14141.281: [ParNew: > 57258K->5232K(59008K), 0.0091650 secs] 1654693K->1604268K(4187776K) > icms_dc=0 , 0.0093210 secs] [Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=0.01 secs] > Total time for which application threads were stopped: 0.0101470 seconds > 2011-08-08T18:55:22.179+0000: 14141.592: [GC 14141.592: [ParNew: > 57712K->6521K(59008K), 0.0307120 secs] 1656748K->1608576K(4187776K) > icms_dc=0 , 0.0308700 secs] [Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=0.03 secs] > Total time for which application threads were stopped: 0.0318530 seconds > 2011-08-08T18:55:22.603+0000: 14142.016: [GC 14142.016: [ParNew: > 59001K->364K(59008K), 0.0471390 secs] 1661056K->1608313K(4187776K) icms_dc=0 > , 0.0472720 secs] [Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=0.05 secs] > Total time for which application threads were stopped: 0.0480990 seconds > 2011-08-08T18:55:22.994+0000: 14142.407: [GC 14142.407: [ParNew: > 52844K->2014K(59008K), 0.0257020 secs] 1660793K->1609963K(4187776K) > icms_dc=0 , 0.0258530 secs] [Times: user=0.00 sys=0.00, real=0.03 secs] > > > I believe we are indeed using "virtualization"Š $0.68/hour, three nodes > 7 GB of memory > 20 EC2 Compute Units (8 virtual cores with 2.5 EC2 Compute Units each) > 1690 GB of instance storage > 64-bit platform > I/O Performance: High > API name: c1.xlarge > > > I am absolutely sure this is unpredictable and cause of a problem is sharing > the same hardware with 3-4 other users. Box such as cc1.4xlarge is shared > with 3 other users to make 3 instances of c1.xlarge, and no swap file (but > "swap caching"?) > 23 GB of memory > 33.5 EC2 Compute Units (2 x Intel Xeon X5570, quad-core ³Nehalem² > architecture) > 1690 GB of instance storage > 64-bit platform > I/O Performance: Very High (10 Gigabit Ethernet) > API name: cc1.4xlarge > > > > Any EC2 bad/good experience to share? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -- > Fuad Efendi > http://www.tokenizer.ca > > > > > >
