GC benchmarks

[Tony Printezis]

Well, it's kind of hard to come up with figures like that, given that 
you can typically trade throughput for footprint. :-)

Tony

Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> I would have hoped for something like:
> CMS has a 10% throughput hit on jbb2000, with a 20% increase in footprint ;)
>
> - Clemens
>
> 2009/6/8 Tony Printezis <Antonios.Printezis at sun.com>:
>   
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The reality these days is that, with a bit of effort in tuning the GC, GC
>> overhead in applications is really very low (single digit percentage,
>> sometimes even as low as 1% or 2%). The actual overhead / pause times / etc.
>> are very application dependent. So, if you come up with a say synthetic
>> benchmark that does mostly GC, I don't know whether you'll learn anything by
>> comparing how our GCs perform on it. We have a few such benchmarks, but they
>> are mainly used for stress testing, not performance testing.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> Paul Hohensee wrote:
>>     
>>> Actually, specjbb2005 stresses gc more than jbb2000.  The latter can be
>>> gamed to
>>> avoid gc entirely during the timed intervals of the run, whereas the
>>> former cannot.
>>> Also, the timed intervals of the run in jbb2005 are 4 minutes long
>>> compared with
>>> 2 minutes in jbb2000, which pretty much guarantees at least a young gen
>>> collection
>>> during a timed interval.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Dan Hicks wrote:
>>>       
>>>> The old SPECjbb2000 benchmark was pretty much a pure test of GC
>>>> peformance (with a little bit of pure CPU overhead thrown in).  The
>>>> (current) SPECjbb2005 benchmark was modified to throw in more system
>>>> complexity (though I don't recall the details) and is less of a GC
>>>> benchmark.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.spec.org/jbb2000/results/
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the results aren't real current, and aren't organized in a
>>>> way to allow you to compare GC algorithms very readily.
>>>>         
>>>>> Message: 1
>>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:01:57 -0400
>>>>> From: Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy at gmail.com>
>>>>> Subject: GC benchmarks
>>>>> To: hotspot-gc-dev at openjdk.java.net
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>    <194f62550906021101j4a3dacfbx3219a344bb91ed at mail.gmail.com>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Just for fun, does anybody know some benchmarks comparing the
>>>>> different GCs available with some real-world load?
>>>>> I would be interested in results for small servers (4-16P), like
>>>>> memory overhead, pause times, throughput impact.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know basically how the different GCs work, however I hadn't much
>>>>> luck finding hard numbers ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you in advance, Clemens
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> End of hotspot-gc-dev Digest, Vol 24, Issue 1
>>>>> *********************************************
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> | Tony Printezis, Staff Engineer   | Sun Microsystems Inc.          |
>> |                                  | MS UBUR02-311                  |
>> | e-mail: tony.printezis at sun.com   | 35 Network Drive               |
>> | office: +1 781 442 0998 (x20998) | Burlington, MA 01803-2756, USA |
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> e-mail client: Thunderbird (Linux)
>>
>>
>>
>>     

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Tony Printezis, Staff Engineer   | Sun Microsystems Inc.          |
|                                  | MS UBUR02-311                  |
| e-mail: tony.printezis at sun.com   | 35 Network Drive               |
| office: +1 781 442 0998 (x20998) | Burlington, MA 01803-2756, USA |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail client: Thunderbird (Linux)