Understanding Java Garbage Collection - And What You Can Do About It
13 likes3,314 views
The document provides an in-depth understanding of Java garbage collection (GC) principles, discussing various types of collectors, their mechanisms, and performance implications. It emphasizes the importance of comprehending GC operations to effectively address memory management and application architecture issues. Additionally, it highlights common misconceptions about GC efficiency and the significance of generational collection techniques.
![Mark/Sweep/Compact, Copy, Mark/Compact
Copy requires 2x the max. live set to be reliable
Mark/Compact [typically] requires 2x the max. live set
in order to fully recover garbage in each cycle
Mark/Sweep/Compact only requires 1x (plus some)
Copy and Mark/Compact are linear only to live set
Mark/Sweep/Compact linear (in sweep) to heap size
Mark/Sweep/(Compact) may be able to avoid some
moving work
Copying is [typically] “monolithic”
©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/understandinggcqconlondon2012web-131122075526-phpapp01/85/Understanding-Java-Garbage-Collection-And-What-You-Can-Do-About-It-21-320.jpg)
![Delaying the inevitable
Compaction is inevitable in practice
And compacting anything requires scanning/fixing all references to it
Delay tactics focus on getting “easy empty space” first
This is the focus for the vast majority of GC tuning
Most objects die young [Generational]
So collect young objects only, as much as possible
But eventually, some old dead objects must be reclaimed
Most old dead space can be reclaimed without moving it
[e.g. CMS] track dead space in lists, and reuse it in place
But eventually, space gets fragmented, and needs to be moved
Much of the heap is not “popular” [e.g. G1, “Balanced”]
A non popular region will only be pointed to from a small % of the heap
So compact non-popular regions in short stop-the-world pauses
But eventually, popular objects and regions need to be compacted
©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/understandinggcqconlondon2012web-131122075526-phpapp01/85/Understanding-Java-Garbage-Collection-And-What-You-Can-Do-About-It-35-320.jpg)
![What is causing the
Application Memory Wall?
Garbage Collection is a clear and dominant cause
There seem to be practical heap size limits for
applications with responsiveness requirements
[Virtually] All current commercial JVMs will exhibit a
multi-second pause on a normally utilized 2-4GB heap.
It’s a question of “When” and “How often”, not “If”.
GC tuning only moves the “when” and the “how often” around
Root cause: The link between scale and responsiveness
©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/understandinggcqconlondon2012web-131122075526-phpapp01/85/Understanding-Java-Garbage-Collection-And-What-You-Can-Do-About-It-47-320.jpg)
![The things that seem “hard” to do in GC
Robust concurrent marking
References keep changing
Multi-pass marking is sensitive to mutation rate
Weak, Soft, Final references “hard” to deal with concurrently
[Concurrent] Compaction…
It’s not the moving of the objects…
It’s the fixing of all those references that point to them
How do you deal with a mutator looking at a stale reference?
If you can’t, then remapping is a [monolithic] STW operation
Young Generation collection at scale
Young Generation collection is generally monolithic, Stop-The-World
Young generation pauses are only small because heaps are tiny
A 100GB heap will regularly have several GB of live young stuff…
©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/understandinggcqconlondon2012web-131122075526-phpapp01/85/Understanding-Java-Garbage-Collection-And-What-You-Can-Do-About-It-51-320.jpg)
![The problems that need solving
(areas where the state of the art needs improvement)
Robust Concurrent Marking
In the presence of high mutation and allocation rates
Cover modern runtime semantics (e.g. weak refs)
Compaction that is not monolithic-stop-the-world
Stay responsive while compacting many-GB heaps
Must be robust: not just a tactic to delay STW compaction
[current “incremental STW” attempts fall short on robustness]
Non-monolithic-stop-the-world Generational collection
Stay responsive while promoting multi-GB data spikes
Concurrent or “incremental STW” may both be ok
Surprisingly little work done in this specific area
©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/understandinggcqconlondon2012web-131122075526-phpapp01/85/Understanding-Java-Garbage-Collection-And-What-You-Can-Do-About-It-54-320.jpg)
Understanding Java Garbage Collection - And What You Can Do About It
- 1. Understanding Java Garbage Collection and what you can do about it Gil Tene, CTO & co-Founder, Azul Systems ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 2. This Talk’s Purpose / Goals This talk is focused on GC education This is not a “how to use flags to tune a collector” talk This is a talk about how the “GC machine” works Purpose: Once you understand how it works, you can use your own brain... You’ll learn just enough to be dangerous... The “Azul makes the world’s greatest GC” stuff will only come at the end, I promise... ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 3. About me: Gil Tene co-founder, CTO @Azul Systems Have been working on “think different” GC approaches since 2002 Created Pauseless & C4 core GC algorithms (Tene, Wolf) A Long history building Virtual & Physical Machines, Operating Systems, Enterprise apps, etc... ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc. * working on real-world trash compaction issues, circa 2004
- 4. About Azul Vega We make scalable Virtual Machines Have built “whatever it takes to get job done” since 2002 3 generations of custom SMP Multi-core HW (Vega) Now Pure software for commodity x86 (Zing) C4 “Industry firsts” in Garbage collection, elastic memory, Java virtualization, memory scale ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 5. High level agenda GC fundamentals and key mechanisms Some GC terminology & metrics Classifying currently available collectors The “Application Memory Wall” problem The C4 collector: What an actual solution looks like... ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 6. Memory use How many of you use heap sizes of: F more than ½ GB? F more than 1 GB? F more than 2 GB? F more than 4 GB? F more than 10 GB? F more than 20 GB? F more than 50 GB? ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 7. Why should you care? ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 8. The story of the good little architect A good architect must, first and foremost, be able to impose their architectural choices on the project... Early in Azul’s concurrent collector days, we encountered an application exhibiting 18 second pauses Upon investigation, we found the collector was performing 10s of milliions of object finalizations per GC cycle *We have since made reference processing fully concurrent... Every single class written in the project had a finalizer The only work the finalizers did was nulling every reference field The right discipline for a C++ ref-counting environment The wrong discipline for a precise garbage collected environment ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 9. Trying to solve GC problems in application architecture is like throwing knives You probably shouldn’t do it blindfolded It takes practice and understanding to get it right You can get very good at it, but do you really want to? Will all the code you leverage be as good as yours? Examples: Object pooling Off heap storage Distributed heaps ... (In most cases, you end up building your own garbage collector) ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 10. Most of what People seem to “know” about Garbage Collection is wrong In many cases, it’s much better than you may think GC is extremely efficient. Much more so that malloc() Dead objects cost nothing to collect GC will find all the dead objects (including cyclic graphs) ... In many cases, it’s much worse than you may think Yes, it really does stop for ~1 sec per live GB. No, GC does not mean you can’t have memory leaks No, those pauses you eliminated from your 20 minute test are not gone ... ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 11. Some GC Terminology ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 12. A Basic Terminology example: What is a concurrent collector? A Concurrent Collector performs garbage collection work concurrently with the application’s own execution A Parallel Collector uses multiple CPUs to perform garbage collection ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 13. Classifying a collector’s operation A Concurrent Collector performs garbage collection work concurrently with the application’s own execution A Parallel Collector uses multiple CPUs to perform garbage collection A Stop-the-World collector performs garbage collection while the application is completely stopped An Incremental collector performs a garbage collection operation or phase as a series of smaller discrete operations with (potentially long) gaps in between Mostly means sometimes it isn’t (usually means a different fall back mechanism exists) ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 14. Precise vs. Conservative Collection A Collector is Conservative if it is unaware of all object references at collection time, or is unsure about whether a field is a reference or not A Collector is Precise if it can fully identify and process all object references at the time of collection A collector MUST be precise in order to move objects The COMPILERS need to produce a lot of information (OopMaps) All commercial server JVMs use precise collectors All commercial server JVMs use some form of a moving collector ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 15. Safepoints A GC Safepoint is a point or range in a thread’s execution where the collector can identify all the references in that thread’s execution stack “Safepoint” and “GC Safepoint” are often used interchangeably But there are other types of safepoints, including ones that require more information than a GC safepoint does (e.g. deoptimization) “Bringing a thread to a safepoint” is the act of getting a thread to reach a safepoint and not execute past it Close to, but not exactly the same as “stop at a safepoint” e.g. JNI: you can keep running in, but not past the safepoint Safepoint opportunities are (or should be) frequent In a Global Safepoint all threads are at a Safepoint ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 16. What’s common to all precise GC mechanisms? Identify the live objects in the memory heap Reclaim resources held by dead objects Periodically relocate live objects Examples: Mark/Sweep/Compact (common for Old Generations) Copying collector (common for Young Generations) ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 17. Mark (aka “Trace”) Start from “roots” (thread stacks, statics, etc.) “Paint” anything you can reach as “live” At the end of a mark pass: all reachable objects will be marked “live” all non-reachable objects will be marked “dead” (aka “non-live”). Note: work is generally linear to “live set” ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 18. Sweep Scan through the heap, identify “dead” objects and track them somehow (usually in some form of free list) Note: work is generally linear to heap size ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 19. Compact Over time, heap will get “swiss cheesed”: contiguous dead space between objects may not be large enough to fit new objects (aka “fragmentation”) Compaction moves live objects together to reclaim contiguous empty space (aka “relocate”) Compaction has to correct all object references to point to new object locations (aka “remap”) Remap scan must cover all references that could possibly point to relocated objects Note: work is generally linear to “live set” ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 20. Copy Copying collector moves all live objects from a “from” space to a “to” space & reclaims “from” space At start of copy, all objects are in “from” space and all references point to “from” space. Start from “root” references, copy any reachable object to “to” space, correcting references as we go At end of copy, all objects are in “to” space, and all references point to “to” space Note: work generally linear to “live set” ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 21. Mark/Sweep/Compact, Copy, Mark/Compact Copy requires 2x the max. live set to be reliable Mark/Compact [typically] requires 2x the max. live set in order to fully recover garbage in each cycle Mark/Sweep/Compact only requires 1x (plus some) Copy and Mark/Compact are linear only to live set Mark/Sweep/Compact linear (in sweep) to heap size Mark/Sweep/(Compact) may be able to avoid some moving work Copying is [typically] “monolithic” ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 22. Generational Collection Generational Hypothesis: most objects die young Focus collection efforts on young generation: Use a moving collector: work is linear to the live set The live set in the young generation is a small % of the space Promote objects that live long enough to older generations Only collect older generations as they fill up “Generational filter” reduces rate of allocation into older generations Tends to be (order of magnitude) more efficient Great way to keep up with high allocation rate Practical necessity for keeping up with processor throughput ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 23. Generational Collection Requires a “Remembered set”: a way to track all references into the young generation from the outside Remembered set is also part of “roots” for young generation collection No need for 2x the live set: Can “spill over” to old gen Usually want to keep surviving objects in young generation for a while before promoting them to the old generation Immediate promotion can dramatically reduce gen. filter efficiency Waiting too long to promote can dramatically increase copying work ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 24. How does the remembered set work? Generational collectors require a “Remembered set”: a way to track all references into the young generation from the outside Each store of a NewGen reference into an OldGen object needs to be intercepted and tracked Common technique: “Card Marking” A bit (or byte) indicating a word (or region) in OldGen is “suspect” Write barrier used to track references Common technique (e.g. HotSpot): blind stores on reference write Variants: precise vs. imprecise card marking, conditional vs. nonconditional ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 25. The typical combos in commercial server JVMS Young generation usually uses a copying collector Young generation is usually monolithic, stop-the-world Old generation usually uses Mark/Sweep/Compact Old generation may be STW, or Concurrent, or mostly-Concurrent, or Incremental-STW, or mostlyIncremental-STW ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 26. Useful terms for discussing garbage collection Generational Mutator Collects young objects and long lived objects separately. Your program… Parallel Promotion Can use multiple CPUs Allocation into old generation Concurrent Runs concurrently with program Pause A time duration in which the mutator is not running any code Something that is done in a pause Monolithic Stop-The-World Something that must be done in it’s entirety in a single pause Finding all live objects Sweeping Locating the dead objects Compaction Stop-The-World (STW) ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc. Marking Defragments heap Moves objects in memory Remaps all affected references Frees contiguous memory regions
- 27. Useful metrics for discussing garbage collection Heap population (aka Live set) How much of your heap is alive Allocation rate Cycle time How long it takes the collector to free up memory Marking time How fast you allocate How long it takes the collector to find all live objects Mutation rate How fast your program updates references in memory Heap Shape The shape of the live object graph * Hard to quantify as a metric... Object Lifetime Sweep time How long it takes to locate dead objects * Relevant for Mark-Sweep Compaction time How long it takes to free up memory by relocating objects How long objects live * Relevant for Mark-Compact ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 28. Empty memory and CPU/throughput ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 29. Two Intuitive limits If we had infinite empty memory, we would never have to collect, and GC would take 0% of the CPU time If we had exactly 1 byte of empty memory at all times, the collector would have to work “very hard”, and GC would take 100% of the CPU time GC CPU % will follow a rough 1/x curve between these two limit points, dropping as the amount of memory increases. ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 30. Empty memory needs (empty memory == CPU power) The amount of empty memory in the heap is the dominant factor controlling the amount of GC work For both Copy and Mark/Compact collectors, the amount of work per cycle is linear to live set The amount of memory recovered per cycle is equal to the amount of unused memory (heap size) - (live set) The collector has to perform a GC cycle when the empty memory runs out A Copy or Mark/Compact collector’s efficiency doubles with every doubling of the empty memory ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 31. What empty memory controls Empty memory controls efficiency (amount of collector work needed per amount of application work performed) Empty memory controls the frequency of pauses (if the collector performs any Stop-the-world operations) Empty memory DOES NOT control pause times (only their frequency) In Mark/Sweep/Compact collectors that pause for sweeping, more empty memory means less frequent but LARGER pauses ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 32. Some non-monolithic-STW stuff ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 33. Concurrent Marking Mark all reachable objects as “live”, but object graph is “mutating” under us. Classic concurrent marking race: mutator may move reference that has not yet been seen by the marker into an object that has already been visited If not intercepted or prevented in some way, will corrupt the heap Example technique: track mutations, multi-pass marking Track reference mutations during mark (e.g. in card table) Re-visit all mutated references (and track new mutations) When set is “small enough”, do a STW catch up (mostly concurrent) Note: work grows with mutation rate, may fail to finish ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 34. Incremental Compaction Track cross-region remembered sets (which region points to which) To compact a single region, only need to scan regions that point into it to remap all potential references identify regions sets that fit in limited time Each such set of regions is a Stop-the-World increment Safe to run application between (but not within) increments Note: work can grow with the square of the heap size The number of regions pointing into a single region is generally linear to the heap size (the number of regions in the heap) ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 35. Delaying the inevitable Compaction is inevitable in practice And compacting anything requires scanning/fixing all references to it Delay tactics focus on getting “easy empty space” first This is the focus for the vast majority of GC tuning Most objects die young [Generational] So collect young objects only, as much as possible But eventually, some old dead objects must be reclaimed Most old dead space can be reclaimed without moving it [e.g. CMS] track dead space in lists, and reuse it in place But eventually, space gets fragmented, and needs to be moved Much of the heap is not “popular” [e.g. G1, “Balanced”] A non popular region will only be pointed to from a small % of the heap So compact non-popular regions in short stop-the-world pauses But eventually, popular objects and regions need to be compacted ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 36. Classifying common collectors ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 37. The typical combos in commercial server JVMS Young generation usually uses a copying collector Young generation is usually monolithic, stop-the-world Old generation usually uses a Mark/Sweep/Compact collector Old generation may be STW, or Concurrent, or mostly-Concurrent, or Incremental-STW, or mostly-Incremental-STW ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 38. HotSpot™ ParallelGC Collector mechanism classification Monolithic Stop-the-world copying NewGen Monolithic Stop-the-world Mark/Sweep/Compact OldGen ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 39. HotSpot™ ConcMarkSweepGC (aka CMS) Collector mechanism classification Monolithic Stop-the-world copying NewGen (ParNew) Mostly Concurrent, non-compacting OldGen (CMS) Mostly Concurrent marking Mark concurrently while mutator is running Track mutations in card marks Revisit mutated cards (repeat as needed) Stop-the-world to catch up on mutations, ref processing, etc. Concurrent Sweeping Does not Compact (maintains free list, does not move objects) Fallback to Full Collection (Monolithic Stop the world). Used for Compaction, etc. ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 40. HotSpot™ G1GC (aka “Garbage First”) Collector mechanism classification Monolithic Stop-the-world copying NewGen Mostly Concurrent, OldGen marker Mostly Concurrent marking Stop-the-world to catch up on mutations, ref processing, etc. Tracks inter-region relationships in remembered sets Stop-the-world mostly incremental compacting old gen Objective: “Avoid, as much as possible, having a Full GC…” Compact sets of regions that can be scanned in limited time Delay compaction of popular objects, popular regions Fallback to Full Collection (Monolithic Stop the world). Used for compacting popular objects, popular regions, etc. ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 41. The “Application Memory Wall” ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 42. Memory use How many of you use heap sizes of: F more than ½ GB? F more than 1 GB? F more than 2 GB? F more than 4 GB? F more than 10 GB? F more than 20 GB? F more than 50 GB? ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 43. Reality check: servers in 2012 Retail prices, major web server store (US $, March 2012) 16 vCore, 96GB server ≈ $5K 16 vCore, 256GB server ≈ $9K 24 vCore, 384GB server ≈ $14K 32 vCore, 1TB server ≈ $35K Cheap (< $1/GB/Month), and roughly linear to ~1TB 10s to 100s of GB/sec of memory bandwidth ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 44. The Application Memory Wall A simple observation: Application instances appear to be unable to make effective use of modern server memory capacities The size of application instances as a % of a server’s capacity is rapidly dropping ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 45. How much memory do applications need? “640KB ought to be enough for anybody” WRONG! So what’s the right number? 6,400K? 64,000K? 640,000K? 6,400,000K? 64,000,000K? There is no right number Target moves at 50x-100x per decade ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc. “I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time …” - Bill Gates, 1996
- 46. “Tiny” application history Assuming Moore’s Law means: 2010 “transistor counts grow at ≈2x every ≈18 months” It also means memory size grows ≈100x every 10 years 1990 1980 ??? GB apps on 256 GB Application Memory Wall 2000 1GB apps on a 2 – 4 GB server 10MB apps on a 32 – 64 MB server 100KB apps on a ¼ to ½ MB Server “Tiny”: would be “silly” to distribute ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 47. What is causing the Application Memory Wall? Garbage Collection is a clear and dominant cause There seem to be practical heap size limits for applications with responsiveness requirements [Virtually] All current commercial JVMs will exhibit a multi-second pause on a normally utilized 2-4GB heap. It’s a question of “When” and “How often”, not “If”. GC tuning only moves the “when” and the “how often” around Root cause: The link between scale and responsiveness ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 48. What quality of GC is responsible for the Application Memory Wall? It is NOT about overhead or efficiency: CPU utilization, bottlenecks, memory consumption and utilization It is NOT about speed Average speeds, 90%, 99% speeds, are all perfectly fine It is NOT about minor GC events (right now) GC events in the 10s of msec are usually tolerable for most apps It is NOT about the frequency of very large pauses It is ALL about the worst observable pause behavior People avoid building/deploying visibly broken systems ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 49. GC Problems ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 50. Framing the discussion: Garbage Collection at modern server scales Modern Servers have 100s of GB of memory Each modern x86 core (when actually used) produces garbage at a rate of ¼ - ½ GB/sec + That’s many GB/sec of allocation in a server Monolithic stop-the-world operations are the cause of the current Application Memory Wall ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 51. The things that seem “hard” to do in GC Robust concurrent marking References keep changing Multi-pass marking is sensitive to mutation rate Weak, Soft, Final references “hard” to deal with concurrently [Concurrent] Compaction… It’s not the moving of the objects… It’s the fixing of all those references that point to them How do you deal with a mutator looking at a stale reference? If you can’t, then remapping is a [monolithic] STW operation Young Generation collection at scale Young Generation collection is generally monolithic, Stop-The-World Young generation pauses are only small because heaps are tiny A 100GB heap will regularly have several GB of live young stuff… ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 52. How can we break through the Application Memory Wall? ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 53. We need to solve the right problems Focus on the causes of the Application Memory Wall Root cause: Scale is artificially limited by responsiveness Responsiveness must be unlinked from scale Heap size, Live Set size, Allocation rate, Mutation rate Responsiveness must be continually sustainable Can’t ignore “rare” events Eliminate all Stop-The-World Fallbacks At modern server scales, any STW fall back is a failure ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 54. The problems that need solving (areas where the state of the art needs improvement) Robust Concurrent Marking In the presence of high mutation and allocation rates Cover modern runtime semantics (e.g. weak refs) Compaction that is not monolithic-stop-the-world Stay responsive while compacting many-GB heaps Must be robust: not just a tactic to delay STW compaction [current “incremental STW” attempts fall short on robustness] Non-monolithic-stop-the-world Generational collection Stay responsive while promoting multi-GB data spikes Concurrent or “incremental STW” may both be ok Surprisingly little work done in this specific area ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 55. Azul’s “C4” Collector Continuously Concurrent Compacting Collector Concurrent, compacting new generation Concurrent, compacting old generation Concurrent guaranteed-single-pass marker Oblivious to mutation rate Concurrent ref (weak, soft, final) processing Concurrent Compactor Objects moved without stopping mutator References remapped without stopping mutator Can relocate entire generation (New, Old) in every GC cycle No stop-the-world fallback Always compacts, and always does so concurrently ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 56. Sample responsiveness improvement ๏ SpecJBB + Slow churning 2GB LRU Cache ๏ Live set is ~2.5GB across all measurements ๏ Allocation rate is ~1.2GB/sec across all measurements ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 57. Fun with jHiccup
- 58. Zing 5, 1GB in an 8GB heap Oracle HotSpot CMS, 1GB in an 8GB heap Hiccups&by&Time&Interval& Max"per"Interval" 99%" 99.90%" Hiccups&by&Time&Interval& 99.99%" Max" Max"per"Interval" 20" 15" 10" 5" 0" Max" 12000" 10000" 8000" 6000" 4000" 2000" 500" 1000" 1500" 2000" 2500" 3000" 3500" 0" 500" 1000" &Elapsed&Time&(sec)& 1500" 2000" 2500" 3000" 3500" &Elapsed&Time&(sec)& Hiccups&by&Percen*le&Distribu*on& Hiccups&by&Percen*le&Distribu*on& 14000" 20" Hiccup&Dura*on&(msec)& 25" Hiccup&Dura*on&(msec)& 99.99%" 0" 0" Max=20.384& 15" 10" 5" 0" 99.90%" 14000" Hiccup&Dura*on&(msec)& Hiccup&Dura*on&(msec)& 25" 99%" 0%" 90%" 99%" & 99.9%" 99.99%" & Percen*le& 99.999%" 99.9999%" Max=13156.352& 12000" 10000" 8000" 6000" 4000" 2000" 0" 0%" 90%" 99%" &99.9%" & Percen*le& 99.99%" 99.999%"
- 59. Zing 5, 1GB in an 8GB heap Oracle HotSpot CMS, 1GB in an 8GB heap Hiccups&by&Time&Interval& Max"per"Interval" 99%" 99.90%" Hiccups&by&Time&Interval& 99.99%" Max" Max"per"Interval" 12000" 99.99%" Max" 12000" 10000" 8000" 6000" 4000" 2000" 0" 10000" 8000" 6000" 4000" 2000" 0" 0" 500" 1000" 1500" 2000" 2500" 3000" 3500" 0" 500" 1000" &Elapsed&Time&(sec)& 1500" 2000" 2500" 3000" 3500" &Elapsed&Time&(sec)& Hiccups&by&Percen*le&Distribu*on& Hiccups&by&Percen*le&Distribu*on& 14000" 12000" 12000" Hiccup&Dura*on&(msec)& 14000" Hiccup&Dura*on&(msec)& 99.90%" 14000" Hiccup&Dura*on&(msec)& Hiccup&Dura*on&(msec)& 14000" 99%" 10000" 8000" 6000" 4000" 2000" 0" 0%" 90%" Max=20.384& 99%" & 99.9%" 99.99%" & Percen*le& 99.999%" 99.9999%" Max=13156.352& 10000" 8000" 6000" 4000" 2000" 0" 0%" 90%" 99%" &99.9%" & Percen*le& 99.99%" 99.999%"
- 60. Instance capacity test: “Fat Portal” CMS: Peaks at ~ 3GB / 45 concurrent users * LifeRay portal on JBoss @ 99.9% SLA of 5 second response times
- 61. Instance capacity test: “Fat Portal” C4: still smooth @ 800 concurrent users * LifeRay portal on JBoss @ 99.9% SLA of 5 second response times ©2012 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 62. GC Tuning ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 63. Java GC tuning is “hard”… Examples of actual command line GC tuning parameters: Java -Xmx12g -XX:MaxPermSize=64M -XX:PermSize=32M -XX:MaxNewSize=2g -XX:NewSize=1g -XX:SurvivorRatio=128 -XX:+UseParNewGC -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:MaxTenuringThreshold=0 -XX:CMSInitiatingOccupancyFraction=60 -XX:+CMSParallelRemarkEnabled -XX:+UseCMSInitiatingOccupancyOnly -XX:ParallelGCThreads=12 -XX:LargePageSizeInBytes=256m … Java –Xms8g –Xmx8g –Xmn2g -XX:PermSize=64M -XX:MaxPermSize=256M -XX:-OmitStackTraceInFastThrow -XX:SurvivorRatio=2 -XX:-UseAdaptiveSizePolicy -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:+CMSConcurrentMTEnabled -XX:+CMSParallelRemarkEnabled -XX:+CMSParallelSurvivorRemarkEnabled -XX:CMSMaxAbortablePrecleanTime=10000 -XX:+UseCMSInitiatingOccupancyOnly -XX:CMSInitiatingOccupancyFraction=63 -XX:+UseParNewGC –Xnoclassgc … ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 64. The complete guide to Zing GC tuning java -Xmx40g ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.
- 65. Q&A http:/ /www.azulsystems.com G. Tene, B. Iyengar and M. Wolf C4: The Continuously Concurrent Compacting Collector In Proceedings of the international symposium on Memory management, ISMM’11, ACM, pages 79-88 Jones, Richard; Hosking, Antony; Moss, Eliot (25 July 2011). The Garbage Collection Handbook: The Art of Automatic Memory Management. CRC Press. ISBN 1420082795. ©2011 Azul Systems, Inc.