|
Home > Archive > WebSphere Application Server > February 2004 > Garbage Collection in WS5
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Garbage Collection in WS5
|
|
|
| How can I improve on Garbage collection in WS5? Is there a way to make it
asyncronous? Currently with verboseGC on I see "Full GC's" of upwards of 10
seconds were the system does not responde at all.
Any tips on this would be appreciated.
Frank
| |
| Mike Edwards 2004-02-08, 11:33 pm |
| Frank,
> How can I improve on Garbage collection in WS5? Is there a way to make it
> asyncronous? Currently with verboseGC on I see "Full GC's" of upwards of
10
> seconds were the system does not responde at all.
>
> Any tips on this would be appreciated.
Can you attach some sample verbose:gc output?
Which version of WAS 5 are you using and which version of Java is being used
(1.3.1 or 1.4.1 ?).
Yours, Mike.
IBM Java Technologies.
| |
|
|
"Mike Edwards" <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:c07uko$4c1e$1@news.boulder.ibm.com...
> Frank,
>
>
it[color=blue]
of[color=blue]
> 10
>
> Can you attach some sample verbose:gc output?
> Which version of WAS 5 are you using and which version of Java is being
used
> (1.3.1 or 1.4.1 ?).
>
> Yours, Mike.
> IBM Java Technologies.
>
>
The JVM is 1.3.1.
Here is a sample verboseGC:
[GC 405691K->380443K(523136K), 0.1327674 secs]
[GC 410774K->386869K(523136K), 0.1500907 secs]
[GC 417332K->392220K(523136K), 0.1094853 secs]
[GC 422435K->398139K(523136K), 0.0865817 secs]
[GC 428572K->400949K(523136K), 0.0644922 secs]
[GC 431407K->405584K(523136K), 0.0908917 secs]
[GC 436048K->408283K(523136K), 0.0848199 secs]
[GC 438747K->411730K(523136K), 0.1055138 secs]
[GC 442193K->414955K(523136K), 0.1155826 secs]
[GC 445419K->419102K(523136K), 0.1553942 secs]
[GC 449550K->423876K(523136K), 0.1629113 secs]
[GC 454340K->428656K(523136K), 0.1452851 secs]
[GC 459120K->433243K(523136K), 0.1333154 secs]
[GC 463706K->437526K(523136K), 0.1189843 secs]
[GC 467834K->440150K(523136K), 0.1010709 secs]
[GC 470598K->444617K(523136K), 0.0786696 secs]
[GC 474974K->447329K(523136K), 0.0666734 secs]
[GC 477793K->452675K(523136K), 0.0887862 secs]
[GC 483120K->455874K(523136K), 0.0622090 secs]
[GC 486335K->462868K(523136K), 0.0915084 secs]
[GC 493102K->467604K(523136K), 0.0902017 secs]
[GC 498064K->471353K(523136K), 0.0666444 secs]
[GC 501815K->478347K(523136K), 0.0867306 secs]
[GC 508490K->482997K(523136K), 0.1225428 secs]
[GC 513461K->485918K(523136K), 0.1387598 secs]
[GC 516382K->488374K(523136K), 0.1076141 secs]
[GC 518838K->493302K(523776K), 0.1875344 secs]
[Full GC 523766K->322761K(569560K), 6.8704905 secs]
[GC 353225K->327526K(569560K), 0.1035685 secs]
Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Frank
| |
|
|
|
|
"Ben_" <reply@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:c08ik6$26vu$2@news.boulder.ibm.com...
> You may want to read the IBM JVM Diagnostics Guide for your version of the
> VM (http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwor...a/jdk/diagnosis) to get
> detailed description of the GC implementation.
>
>
We are on a Sun machine and were told that we needed to use the Sun JVM not
the IBM one.
Frank
| |
|
| > ... were told that we needed to use the Sun JVM ...
Yes because there is no IBM VM for Solaris, AFAIK.
|
|
|
|
|