I'd just like to let you know that I solved my CPU load and socket stability problems by removing a call I was making to System.gc() I put in when I was trying to solve the problem earlier. I've been running my application now for about 30 minutes, and the profiler shows that no instances survive one gc. My Ubuntu system monitor shows no significant memory consumption so far.
Your tip was golden. Thanks. On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 11:37, Owen Thomas <owen.paul.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Leo. > > On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 08:29, Leo Donahue <donahu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Maybe this helps? >> >> SER10-J >> >> https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=88487787 >> >> > Still early days yet, but I think a heart-felt thank you might be in order > here. > > Resetting the output stream after writing may have released transmitters > that remain cached after writing. Doing this appears to have made the > transmitters eligible of garbage collection. > > The number of "Live Objects" rarely goes above 4 and the "Live Bytes" > column rarely goes into three figures for any sample displayed in the > objects view on the profiler. I still see the number of "Allocated Objects" > appears to rise without limit, and so I'm not sure what this column is > displaying: is it the total number of objects created during the time that > the view has been sampling? > > I notice that my CPU's have become considerably more active (all four of > them now run at about 80% instead of at about 30%), but I put this down to > the extra load being generated by the increased activity of the garbage > collector. I also notice a significant increase in the amount of "socket > resetting" required by my application. Again, I believe this is due to the > garbage collectors staking the CPU's away from my processes which allow > only a small window of delay before closing the current socket and creating > a new socket to replace it; this is a designed intent, and one that may add > even more load onto the CPU's. > > I do still see memory rising slowly on the system monitor, and so I deduce > that I haven't eliminated all my memory leak problems with this apparent > fix... pity. > > The main thing is that this appears to be progress that wouldn't have > happened without your tip. Perhaps, however, I still have more questions to > ask. > > Thank you, > > Owen. > >
