Prev: Serious concurrency problems on fast systems
Next: Entity Context has all the information
From: Arne Vajhøj on 2 Jun 2010 19:39
On 02-06-2010 19:09, Daniel Pitts wrote:
> On 6/2/2010 3:44 PM, Lew wrote:
>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>> ... you might as well set ms to N.
>>
>> Daniel Pitts wrote:
>>> Set which? MX or MS?
>>
> Ah, my mind must have filtered "ms" into "it" for some reason.
>
> Anyway, I disagree about that. I would think that ms should be set to
> the "average case", and mx to the "worst case that we want to succeed"

Mike was not even that aggressive - he just wanted to set to the
minimum.

#if you know the app will grown to at least N during its life, you
#might as well set ms to N

Arne

From: Mike Schilling on 3 Jun 2010 01:38


"Daniel Pitts" <newsgroup.spamfilter(a)virtualinfinity.net> wrote in message
news:WmxNn.88775$_84.2526(a)newsfe18.iad...
> On 6/1/2010 9:59 PM, Mike Schilling wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtrie(a)pixelmemory.us> wrote in message
>> news:4c05e127$0$22132$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>>
>>>
>>> I don't know if it holds true for 1.6, but heap growth had performance
>>> problems in 1.4 and 1.5 so setting ms and mx to the same value helped
>>> some applications. Searching bug reports are a great way to gather
>>> information about edge cases like this.
>>
>>
>> It's still true that if you know the app will grown to at least N during
>> its life, you might as well set ms to N. Otherwise you're just causing
>> unnecessarily expensive GCs while it grows.
> Set which? MX or MS?

ms, as I said.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Serious concurrency problems on fast systems
Next: Entity Context has all the information