|
|
Sunday, March 13, 2005
|
|
| |
Why can't I allocate 2GB of heap to the JVM on Windows, Part 2 I got an email from Fredrik Paulsson asking about my previous
entry
concerning "Why can't
I
allocate 2GB of heap to the JVM on Windows?" Fredrik (and
others)
have asked about the new /3GB and /PAE switches available in certain
releases of Windows (2000/2003, AS/ES).
There is a description
of the /3GB switch over at the Microsoft website.
Anyways, the use of this switch
does not enable the JVM to
allocate more than 2GB heap on Windows. Why? To the best of my
knowledge,the Java Virtual
Machine wants a contiguous allocation of memory. The
/3GB switch
in Windows does not allow that. The use of non-contiguous memory space
for the 32bit JVM would most probably cause performance issues. Can you
imagine doing garbage collection over 3GB of non-contiguous
RAM? *shudder*
PS> One of the Java VM gods here at Sun confirmed this with the
following:
"
The reason we need a contiguous memory region for the heap is that we
have a bunch of side data structures that are indexed by (scaled)
offsets from the start of the heap. For example, we track object
reference updates with a "card mark array" that has one byte for each
512 bytes of heap. When we store a reference in the heap we have to
mark the corresponding byte in the card mark array. We right shift the
destination address of the store and use that to index the card mark
array. Fun addressing arithmetic games you can't do in Java that you
get to (have to :-) play in C++.
Usually we don't have trouble
getting modest contiguous regions (up
to about 1.5GB on Windohs, up to about 3.8GB on Solaris. YMMV.). On
Windohs, the problem is mostly that there are some libraries that get
loaded before the JVM starts up that break up the address space. Using
the /3GB switch won't rebase those libraries, so they are still a
problem for us.
We know how to make chunked
heaps, but there would be some overhead
to using them. We have more requests for faster storage management than
we do for larger heaps in the 32-bit JVM. If you really want large
heaps, switch to the 64-bit JVM. We still need contiguous memory, but
it's much easier to get in a 64-bit address space.
I hope that
helps
... peter "
7:16:06 PM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, June 10, 2004
|
|
|
Wednesday, June 9, 2004
|
|
| |
Logging GC output to a file, the differences between Xloggc and verbose:gc
I'm sure people have noticed this little idiosyncrasy in the way that garbage collection log output is handled in the JVM. But if you have not, this is a good data point when preparing to read through GC logs.
If you simply use the verbose:gc flag, you'll have GC log output sent to the stdout console. Now, if you use the -Xloggc:[filename] switch, the GC data will be sent to a log file which you can grep through later. But either way, you get the the same GC data ...right? Wrong.
The -Xloggc:[filename] switch has the additional effect of turning on the -XX:+PrintGCTimeStamps switch and hence gives your log files the added benefit of time stamps. Wierd! I'd expect both of these switches to have the same exact behavior. I might file an RFE or Bug on this tonight.
Oh, for those who want to use it, the -Xloggc switch was introduced in 1.4.0 and newer VMs.
3:18:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, June 8, 2004
|
|
| |
Alexandre Rafalovitch, a BEA Backline Support Engineer emailed me about reading thread dumps and his proposal for formatting dump data. I've read through Alexandres article, and while I'm not a big fan of using XML for everything, he definitely presents an excellent view on making thread dumps easier to read and diagnose. The really cool part is that Alexandre has written an application which takes standard thread dump data, converts it into XML, then uses XSLT to convert the data into the format of your choice.
I'm actually a bit surprised that there isn't a JSR in progress to address this issue. I think one of the reasons for this is that most developers and users are not interested in the nuances of thread dump readability. Of course, as backline engineers, this topic is near and dear to myself and Alexandre. Alexandre will be presenting this in a session at JavaONE 2004, session TS-1646. I'll be sure to attend.
"What would be a perfect solution here is to be able to convert these thread-dumps into some sort of intermediate structure/language that has flexible structure, can tolerate missing fields, and can be processed by third-party tools in various ways. And, of course, if it can somehow involve a currently popular technology, so much the better.
Do we have such an intermediate language? Indeed we do ó it is XML. It is somewhat human readable, has many tools written for it, and already has not one but several transformation and reporting technologies built on top of it, such as XSLT, XQuery, and XDB." [full article]
11:00:40 PM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, June 3, 2004
|
|
|
Tuesday, June 1, 2004
|
|
| |
I can't believe that I didn't know about this before! ODB allows you to do 'Omniscient Debugging' on Java applications, with or without the original source code.
The ODB debugger allows "..developers to step backwards through the execution of a program to determine where and how programming errors occurred. By recording each state change in the target application, it allows the developer to navigate "backwards in time" to see what the values of variables and objects WERE, enormously simplifying the task of debugging programs."
One page description of the ODB
Article , Debugging Backwards in Time
AADEBUG paper on Omniscient Debugging (pdf)
ODB User Manual
11:15:53 AM
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 31, 2004
|
|
| |
Want to look at the code of the JVM or build a test version of your own? Use the source.
And look, detailed build instructions are available too!
4:48:35 PM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2005
Moazam Raja.
Last update:
3/13/05; 7:18:19 PM.
|
|
| March 2005 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
| 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
| 20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
| 27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
| Jun Apr |
|