> From: André Warnier [mailto:a...@ice-sa.com]
> Thanks, Chuck and Peter, for the clarifications on OOM.
> I believe that unconsciously, with my "large object
> reservation" theory,
> I was vaguely remembering something I had read some time in the past.
> So I searched Google for "java +parachute +memory" and this
> is something
> I found :
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tomcat-dev/200703.mbo
x/%3c20070325171940.34dae1a9...@eris.apache.org%3e
>
> Does this have any bearing on the OP's issue ?
>
> It is past me capacities to see if it is relevant or not (I don't mean
> the above post per se, but the idea).
Nice.
The idea's relevant... as long as you realise that all it's doing is defending
a very few critical areas of Tomcat's code against some (not all) OOMEs.
Another thread could allocate heap memory between lines in this code, leading
to unexpected failures because the memory freed by the parachute has been used
elsewhere; and it doesn't defend all areas of Tomcat's code (I think - Filip
will no doubt correct me).
It's a great way of helping to make sure that, most of the time, it's at least
possible to log an OOME - assuming the application passes it up the stack,
which most will. It's not a general solution without a lot more work; each
webapp would have to do something similar at each point that it might allocate
heap memory.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
