On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Robert Davies wrote:
> On Thursday 03 January 2002 1:39 pm, you wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Robert Davies wrote:
>
> > > I'm actually a fan of large swaps, in my experience 2.2 needed it to run
> > > really stably, lots of the point releases had issues with the VM if you
> > > ran swap light. 14.5GB *grin* you don't mess about do you :)
> >
> > You think that's a lot? :P There's more of those dotted about here, mostly
> > for very very large java programs that prefer to allocate all the memory.
>
> Yes it's swap heavy going by ratio 14.5 : 1.5 is a lot of swap, when ppl talk
> about 2x rule of thumbs and so many whinge about even that much swap.
I was joking, it's a reasonably large amount yes :)
> Remind me to stay clear of Java...
I think it has its place and certainly at work the problem is the data
being processed is very large rather than the code doing it. Separately, I
wish Nottingham University would steer clear of Java-only scenarios in its
teaching.
> I used to think Oracle was a memory hog, what ever happened to the much
> vaunted 'automatic garbage collection'?
er, large maps of big bits of London getting stored in memory?
> BTW have you tried out 'native' threads as opposed to 'green' threads in a
> Java implementation? I wonder if it's as stable.
I have, though I'm not really in a position to comment on its stability.
--jcm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk
http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu 03 Jan 2002 - 14:45:45 GMT