This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
RE: 100x? (Was: http://gcc.gnu.org/java/done.html)
- From: "Boehm, Hans" <hans_boehm at hp dot com>
- To: "'ajones at clear dot net dot nz'" <ajones at clear dot net dot nz>
- Cc: Anthony Green <green at redhat dot com>,Erik Poupaert <erik dot poupaert at skynet dot be>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:42:20 -0700
- Subject: RE: 100x? (Was: http://gcc.gnu.org/java/done.html)
Anthony -
Could you supply any details? Platform? GC_dump() output? GC log output with GC_PRINT_STATS environment variable defined? A profile? (I can point you at a relatively painless way to get one under Linux/X86, if you like.)
Thanks.
Hans
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Jones [mailto:ajones@clear.net.nz]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 5:42 PM
> To: Anthony Green; Erik Poupaert; ajones@clear.net.nz;
> java@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: 100x? (Was: http://gcc.gnu.org/java/done.html)
>
>
> >On Sun, 2003-07-27 at 02:51, Erik Poupaert wrote:
> >> http://irate.sourceforge.net/index.html
> >>
> >> 22 July 2003 - Problems with the server have been sorted.
> The server has
> been running
> >> as a gcj compiled binary. I've switched to Sun's Java VM
> and it's running
> about 100
> >> times faster. I suspect that the problem is garbage collection.
> >
> >This looks like a cool app. A quick look at their Makefile
> shows that
> >they're building the server with no optimization. But 100
> times seems
> >excessive! Perhaps Anthony Jones can give us a little more data...
>
> Anthony,
>
> I think the problem is garbage collection (memory size). I
> didn't mean to suggest
> that there was anything wrong with gcj compiler. I'm very
> impressed with it.
> I just changed back to the Sun VM because it was easier than
> sorting out the
> actual problem, which I expect is a matter of configuration.
>
> 100 is an exaggeration. It was taking 9 minutes to start up
> the server and now
> it takes 20 seconds or so.
>
> Anthony
>