Java垃圾优先（G1）垃圾收集器的相对性能？

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

有没有人知道Java的新垃圾优先(G1)垃圾收集器的任何性能基准(与“旧”GC相比)?

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.

在GC暂停时间方面,Sun表示G1有时更好,有时甚至比CMS差。虽然G1收集器成功地限制了总暂停时间,但它仍然只是一个软实时收集器。换句话说,它无法保证它不会影响应用程序线程始终满足其截止日期的能力。但是,它可以在明确定义的边界内运行,使其成为需要保持高吞吐量性能的软实时系统的理想选择。

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

我想看看Java 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。

Dr. Dobb's | G1: Java's Garbage First Garbage Collector

Dobb博士的G1:Java的Garbage First垃圾收集器

InfoQ | Sun's Garbage First Collector Largely Eliminates Low Latency/High Throughput Tradeoff

InfoQ | Sun的垃圾收集器大大消除了低延迟/高吞吐量权衡

Java HotSpot Garbage Collection | The Garbage-First Garbage Collector

Java HotSpot垃圾收集|垃圾第一垃圾收集器

5 个解决方案

#1

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

最初的科学文章(Detlefs,Flood,Heller和Printezis的“Garbage-First Garbage Collection”)包含了一些实际措施的细节(见第4节)。

#2

We have just finished a series of testing over CMS and G1, using comparable ergonomics. This is product specific and very subjective, AND we're using Java 6 (so G1 is in the "preview" build) but...

我们刚刚完成了一系列针对CMS和G1的测试,使用了类似的人体工程学设计。这是产品特定的,非常主观,我们正在使用Java 6(因此G1在“预览”版本中)但是......

A system using CMS is 20% faster than G1. This was tested with 8GB and 12GB heap space, with 1GB and 1.5GB young space (respectively).

使用CMS的系统比G1快20%。这是使用8GB和12GB堆空间测试的,分别有1GB和1.5GB的年轻空间。

Again - subjective, single system, specific load - but that's our experience.

再次 - 主观,单一系统,特定负载 - 但这是我们的经验。

#3

If you have a web application, or another application that handles a lot of clients/req, and the response time is important for you, then you better use CMS. this test was found in 'Java performance and scalability'

如果您有一个Web应用程序或其他处理大量客户端/请求的应用程序,并且响应时间对您很重要,那么您最好使用CMS。这个测试是在'Java性能和可伸缩性'中找到的

#4

This Taranfx article (2009-08-29) compares Java 5, 6, and 7 performance on 4 simple benchmarks.

这篇Taranfx文章(2009-08-29)在4个简单的基准测试中比较了Java 5,6和7的性能。

#5

G1 is compared to CMS mostly faster due to the idea of multi-threads. Compared to the Parallel-GC I don't know - it might be the same. Of course G1 is more real-time due to not two kinds of threads running (mostly the small one). It's faster because any thread should produce the same impact to performance. Even compacting is done only on copying. For more details have a closer look at this: http://geekroom.de/java/java-expertise-g1-fur-java-7/

由于多线程的想法,G1与CMS的比较大多快。与Parallel-GC相比,我不知道 - 它可能是相同的。当然G1由于没有两种线程运行(大多数是小线程)而更加实时。它更快,因为任何线程都应该对性能产生相同的影响。即使压缩也仅在复印时完成。有关详细信息,请仔细查看:http://geekroom.de/java/java-expertise-g1-fur-java-7/

#1