
Signature
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Hi,
Roedy Green schrieb:
> In talking about such problems you have to constantly keep mentioning
> whether you mean the working set RAM or the Virtual backing store
> allocated on disk.
Both. As long as the application is active the OS does not swap out any
memory or
constantly swaps in and out while the task switching.
> 1. Do you have any reason to believe returning VM to the OS is the
> expected or possible behaviour?
Yes, it is an expected behaviour. The IBM manual describes exactly
under which condition it is done.
> 2. Do you have any reason to believe that would be a good thing to do.
> VM is just disk space. You are not really tying up anything that
> someone else is in desperate need of. There is an advantage in
> holding on -- keeping the VM contiguous and avoiding the cost of
> reallocating and deallocating.
Normaly you are absolutely right. But, it is a good thing if you can
control this process. The IBM jvm returns the 'Java heap garbage' only,
if you call System.gc.
Normaly an application can allocate 2GiByte for no cost. The
application needs/holds no more (virtual) memory at that point. Not
until the write access to a memory page the MMU asigns accessable
memory to the application. The IBM jvm locks these memory pages all the
time.
BTW: The same IBM jvm running on Linux works as expected/described ...
> Nobody can really help you much since almost none of us have access to
> such a splendid server.
Sounds nice :-)) but the 80 concurrent users (each with a horrable,
memory consuming application) kill it.
Bye Thomas
BTW: I see, that I used the wrong group. I have to have post my problem
into 'machine' not 'programmer'. Tsts ...