Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:15:01 +0200 From: Nikos Ntarmos <ntarmos@ceid.upatras.gr> To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance of Java on FBSD vs. others... Message-ID: <20061110221501.GC72658@ace.b020.ceid.upatras.gr> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0611102249050.18941@decibel.pvv.ntnu.no> References: <20061110203714.GA89006@ace.b020.ceid.upatras.gr> <20061110124459.M88944@turing> <20061110213313.GA72658@ace.b020.ceid.upatras.gr> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0611102249050.18941@decibel.pvv.ntnu.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi there. On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 10:52:47PM +0100, Arne H. Juul wrote: > >I was using -Xms256m -Xmx1024m. Tried with -Xms1024m -Xmx1024m, again > >without any noticeable difference. > > What's "top" look like after running this for a minute or two? You > said you had 1G = 1024MB of RAM; trying to have a heap of 1024m you > may be swapping like crazy, if so try with 600m to 800m. Nope, it's not swap that's killing it... The program i'm running is a p2p network simulation; first, it generates a number of nodes, then it populates the resulting overlay with data, then it queries it. During the node generation part, memory requirements are in the vicinity of 200-300 MBytes, then they go up as data items get added. However, the difference in performance shows up even in this first stage: ~1000'' for FreeBSD, ~210'' for win32, ~220 for linux. \n\n
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061110221501.GC72658>