2 ms·
That's not been true for a while. GCs like ZGC can handle tiny heaps with no pauses, pretty minimal heap wastage and a ~10% throughput hit vs a more middle of
by thu2111 6y ago
That's not been true for a while.
GCs like ZGC can handle tiny heaps with no pauses, pretty minimal heap wastage and a ~10% throughput hit vs a more middle of the road GC. You're thinking of the Go GC and assuming they must be all like that.
- fauigerzigerk 6y agoI'll be very happy once claims about improved GC performance turn into actual reality for my workloads. What is "pretty minimal heap wastage"? As far as I can see, ZGC (which is currently marked as experimental) doesn't give any specific performance guarantees. It'll be interesting to try. "How much headroom is needed very much depends on the allocation rate and the live-set size of the application. In general, the more memory you give to ZGC the better." https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/13/gctuning/z-garbage-collector1.html#GUID-A5A42691-095E-47BA-B6DC-FB4E5FAA43D0 https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/13/gctuning/z-garbage...
- thu2111 6y agoHeap wastage is tunable vs CPU time, but it's less than the 100% go uses. If you have spare RAM your app will run faster, is the usual tradeoff.