<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Fabian,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m glad you brought this discussion to hotspot-gc-dev. This is a very good place to have this discussion.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If others on hotspot-gc-dev need a bit more context of the thread of discussion, I’d be glad to do so.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The gist of the issue is whether G1 should reduce the size of eden space when MaxGCPauseMillis is exceeded.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">To pickup things on where this thread is going … </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If the workload is very reproducible, then is it unreasonable to ask for a configuration run that enabled ParallelRefProcEnabled with set of command line options that were used in the first run? How about we exercise some good practices here and change one configuration setting at a time? And, let’s also ensure we have results that are reproducible. We have several unanswered questions between the first and second run, i.e. why did ref proc times drop so drastically, is it all due to ParallelRefProcEnabled? How could a forced larger Eden size allow Ref Proc times to be reduced? Is the workload producing repeatable results / behavior?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Aside from the specifics just mentioned, I think the key thing to understand here is the school thought behind shrinking the size of eden when GC pauses exceed MaxGCPauseMillis, and why it is not a good idea to grow the size of Eden in such a case? Perhaps one of the long time GC engineers would like to join the fun? ;-)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">@Kirk: You mentioned, “reference processing times clearly dominated resulting in Eden being shrunk in a feeble attempt to meet the pause time goal”. Can you offer some alternatives that would be a better alternative that G1 could do adaptively to meet the pause time goal in the presence of high reference processing times, and for bonus points, could you file those enhancements in JIRA so they can be further evaluated and vetted?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">thanks,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">charlie</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><div class=""> <br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 20, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Fabian Lange <<a href="mailto:fabian.lange@codecentric.de" class="">fabian.lange@codecentric.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra">Hi Kirk,</div><div class="gmail_extra">I know that it is questioned also on the other list, where I will continue to discuss potential better settings, but I can tell you that the workload is really reproducible, as this system measures its data ingress and the rate was close to equal. Data egress was radically different.</div><div class="gmail_extra">My main concern here on hotspot-gc-dev is that the defaults produced a bad result. Plus I have the feeling the GC optimizes in the wrong direction (shrinking eden instead of increasing eden).</div><div class="gmail_extra">I will come back to this list when we manually figured out good settings.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_extra">Fabian<br class="">
<br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 7:38 PM, <a href="mailto:kirk@kodewerk.com" class="">kirk@kodewerk.com</a> <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:kirk@kodewerk.com" target="_blank" class="">kirk@kodewerk.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">Hi Fabian,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I don’t think the experimentation with your app is over. I don’t think the differences between the two runs can easily be dismissed as the result of changing the values of a few flags. In the first relatively short run, reference processing times clearly dominated resulting in Eden being shrunk in a feeble attempt to meet the pause time goal. I don’t think that the shrinkage in reference processing time cannot be solely attributed to turning on parallel reference processing. It seems as if something else changed. At any rate, I believe you should relax the minimum Eden size from 25%. I have posted a number of charts which anyone should be able to see @ <a href="https://drive.google.com/a/jclarity.com/file/d/0B6IuyTuhCQTPUGpFcDA4bF8zbUk/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank" class="">https://drive.google.com/a/jclarity.com/file/d/0B6IuyTuhCQTPUGpFcDA4bF8zbUk/view?usp=sharing</a>.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards,</div><div class="">Kirk</div><div class=""><div class="h5"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 20, 2015, at 1:27 PM, Fabian Lange <<a href="mailto:fabian.lange@codecentric.de" target="_blank" class="">fabian.lange@codecentric.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">Hi,</div><div dir="ltr" class="">(originall posted on adoption-discuss)<br class=""><div class="">since a while I have been recommending and using G1GC for JDK 8 applications.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This week I was looking at an application which should be the ideal candidate.</div><div class="">It was given 4GB ram, has a steady memory usage of about 1-2GB and during its work it generates only garbage. It reads data from sockets, deserializes it, manipulates it, serializes it and writes it out to sockets. It is processing 100k to 500k of such requests per second.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">With the default G1 settings the machine was very loaded. The collection times were pretty long. It even ran out of memory a few times because the GC could not catch up.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">When looking at the logs I was surprised to see extremely small eden/young sizes. The old gen was really big (like 3.5GB, but mostly empty) while G1 was churning on 300MB young.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I raised the question on <a href="https://groups.google.com/a/jclarity.com/d/msg/friends/hsZiz6HTm9M/MbuttBioCgAJ" target="_blank" class="">https://groups.google.com/a/jclarity.com/d/msg/friends/hsZiz6HTm9M/MbuttBioCgAJ</a> where Charlie Hunt was so kind to explain the reasons behind the behaviour. It either did not make sense to me, or I did not understand the explanation. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What I did is what I always did regardless of the collector: I increased young space, knowing it contains mostly garbage.</div><div class="">The overall behaviour of the JVM was much improved by that.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I found it irritating, that according to Charlie, the main reason for the small eden is the Pause Time Limit. Because GC was not meeting its goal it reduced eden. While I observed better results doing the opposite.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I also enabled -XX:+<span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px" class="">ParallelRefProcEnabled.</span></div><div class=""><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px" class="">Logs are available from the above discussion, but I can send them in separate mail if desired.</span></div><div class=""><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" class="">As far as I can tell the ergonomics are not working for me, and the changes I need to do are counter intuitive. From other discussions I learned that quite many people observed better overall performance with raising the pause time restriction.</font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" class="">Is there public information to why the current defaults are as they are? How would feedback on these defaults work?</font></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best regards,</div><div class="">Fabian</div></div>
</div><br class=""></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></body></html>