Java的垃圾收集器（G1）垃圾收集器的相对性能？ [英] Relative Performance of Java's Garbage First (G1) Garbage Collector?

问题描述

有谁知道Java新的Garbage First（G1）垃圾收集器（与旧GC相比）的任何性能基准？

就GC停顿时间而言，Sun指出G1有时比CMS更好，有时甚至更糟。虽然G1收集器在限制总暂停时间方面很成功，但它仍然只是一个软实时收集器。换句话说，它不能保证它不会影响应用程序线程在任何时间内完成截止日期的能力。但是，它可以在一组明确定义的范围内运行，这对于需要保持高吞吐量性能的软实时系统非常理想。

我会希望能够看到Java的CMS（并发标记扫描）和G1（垃圾优先）收集器的吞吐量和延迟的实际测量。 =http://www.drdobbs.com/article/printableArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=XSMESJ4KGCWMPQE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN?articleId=219401061&dept_url=/java/ =noreferrer> Dr。 Dobb's | G1：Java的垃圾收集器

InfoQ | Sun的垃圾收集器很大程度上消除了低延迟/高吞吐量的折衷方案

Java HotSpot垃圾收集| The Garbage-First Garbage Collector

原始科学文章href =http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.63.6386&rep=rep1&type=pdf =noreferrer>垃圾首先垃圾收集 a> by Detlefs，Flood，Heller和Printezis）包含了一些关于实际措施的细节（在第4节）。

Does anyone know of any performance benchmarks of Java's new Garbage First (G1) Garbage Collector (as compared to the "old" GCs)?

In terms of GC pause times, Sun states that G1 is sometimes better and sometimes worse than CMS. While the G1 collector is successful at limiting total pause time, it's still only a soft real-time collector. In other words, it cannot guarantee that it will not impact the application threads' ability to meet its deadlines, all of the time. However, it can operate within a well-defined set of bounds that make it ideal for soft real-time systems that need to maintain high-throughput performance.

I'd like to see actual measures of throughput and latency for Java's CMS (concurrent mark sweep) and G1 (garbage first) collectors.

• Dr. Dobb's | G1: Java's Garbage First Garbage Collector
• InfoQ | Sun's Garbage First Collector Largely Eliminates Low Latency/High Throughput Tradeoff
• Java HotSpot Garbage Collection | The Garbage-First Garbage Collector

解决方案

The original scientific article ("Garbage-First Garbage Collection" by Detlefs, Flood, Heller and Printezis) contains some details on actual measures (in section 4).

这篇关于Java的垃圾收集器（G1）垃圾收集器的相对性能？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！