Troubles with Shenandoah

[Aleksey Shipilev]

On 4/8/19 9:01 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> This seems particularily bad, considering that this benchmark doesn't
> seem to do very much allocations to begin with. I can run it with 16GB
> without significant GC activity, I suspect it can easily run in 8GB or
> 4GB and actual GC still wouldn't matter much. Running it in several
> dozens of GB seems not useful.

+1.

I managed to run the workload in 1G heap with Shenandoah, with only some minor loss in latency.
Larger heaps would be beneficial for concurrent collectors anyway, as they would do less cycles. But
that would probably not matter past some decently sized heap, because the cycles themselves are
short, given the workload is mostly-young.

-Aleksey