Is this GC.log summary indicating memory leak ?
in [Java Programming]
|
Prev: Design issue in swing application
Next: Can I install new JavaRuntime version on top of previous? Automatic (CLASS)PATH change?
From: Lew on 20 Feb 2010 16:34 Eric Sosman wrote: > Where did you find the official Java definition of "memory > leak?" The word "leak" does not appear in the index of the JLS There is no official definition for "memory leak". However, you will observe that in the Java context the use of the term "memory leak" for packratting is nearly universal. Where is the official definition for "memory leak" in other contexts? -- Lew
From: Lew on 20 Feb 2010 16:40 Eric Sosman wrote: >> Where did you find the official Java definition of "memory >> leak?" The word "leak" does not appear in the index of the JLS Lew wrote: > There is no official definition for "memory leak". However, you will > observe that in the Java context the use of the term "memory leak" for > packratting is nearly universal. But then, you knew that already. > Where is the official definition for "memory leak" in other contexts? Here are some authoritative examples for the usage in the Java universe: <http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-leaks/> <http://java.sun.com/javase/6/webnotes/trouble/TSG-VM/html/memleaks.html> "The jhat utility (see 2.5 jhat Utility) is useful when debugging unintentional object retention (or memory leaks)." <http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wasinfo/v6r0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.websphere.express.doc/info/exp/ae/rprf_javamemory.html> See the section "Detecting memory leaks" You could have found these links with <http://www.google.com/search?q=Java+"memory+leak"> in just a couple of minutes. GIYF. -- Lew
From: Arne Vajhøj on 20 Feb 2010 17:33 On 20-02-2010 16:07, Eric Sosman wrote: > On 2/20/2010 3:44 PM, Lew wrote: >> Krist wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >>>> I am trying to find out whether our app is experiencing memory leak by >>>> doing verbose gc on 4 days , here is the summary : (the detail is too >>>> long too attached) >> >> Roedy Green wrote: >>> Unless there is bug in the JVM, a memory leak should be impossible, no >>> matter what fool thing you did in your program. You can however >>> packrat. >> >> In a Java context "memory leak" refers to packratting, just as in a Java >> context "reference" refers to a pointer. The terminology may be >> confusingly similar to, say, C++, but one must take the definitions as >> the apply to the subject. > > Where did you find the official Java definition of "memory > leak?" The word "leak" does not appear in the index of the JLS > nor of the JVMS, nor (unless I've missed something, which is > possible) on any of the pages where those documents discuss > OutOfMemoryError or garbage collection. So, where is it, and > what exactly does it say a "memory leak" is? I think it is the term most commonly used by Java developers to explain the phenomenon. It is a lot better than Roedys use of packrat. Arne
From: Eric Sosman on 20 Feb 2010 18:30 On 2/20/2010 4:34 PM, Lew wrote: > Eric Sosman wrote: >> Where did you find the official Java definition of "memory >> leak?" The word "leak" does not appear in the index of the JLS > > There is no official definition for "memory leak". However, you will > observe that in the Java context the use of the term "memory leak" for > packratting is nearly universal. Thanks, Lew. Part of what you snipped was your statement that "[...] one must take the definitions as the [sic] apply to the subject," and now we have "There is no official definition." Much clearer, to be sure. -- Eric Sosman esosman(a)ieee-dot-org.invalid
From: Lew on 20 Feb 2010 19:21
Eric Sosman wrote: > On 2/20/2010 4:34 PM, Lew wrote: >> Eric Sosman wrote: >>> Where did you find the official Java definition of "memory >>> leak?" The word "leak" does not appear in the index of the JLS >> >> There is no official definition for "memory leak". However, you will >> observe that in the Java context the use of the term "memory leak" for >> packratting is nearly universal. > > Thanks, Lew. Part of what you snipped was your statement that > "[...] one must take the definitions as the [sic] apply to the > subject," and now we have "There is no official definition." > Much clearer, to be sure. The first comment uses "definition" in the sense that Merriam-Webster uses it, that is, the definition as it is observed in actual use. The second, your twist on it, uses "official" definition, a term you brought into to the conversation, not me. -- Lew |