[talk] Python

Sujit K M kmsujit at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 01:41:07 EDT 2016

> Anecdotal. Keep in mind I have tested this and you can create 'a lot more
> objects' given the same RAM than many other popular non java languages. :)

Could you please clarify further? I mean does it involve a object size
on the JVM.
How to measure the size occupied by the Object? How much extra space the JVM
needs? What is JDK Feature that Let's you claim this?

I have serious questions regarding this claim. As Interpreted or JIT
compiled languages
should in reality occupy more space.

> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Pete Wright <pete at nomadlogic.org> wrote:
>> On 04/26/2016 03:56 AM, Brian Coca wrote:
>>> As many a Java dev has told me: "the only problem is that you did not
>>> install enough RAM, just add it, it's cheap!"
>> and therein is the issue - in practice i've found that by adding more
>> memory to a JVM heap will tend to worsen GC pauses, especially for latency
>> sensitive operations.  then you get to do all sorts of fun stuff like
>> storing cached objects outside of the JVM or lord knows what.
>> i spent about 3 months trying to help a team tune their java app when they
>> noticed it would periodically show latencies of several seconds. they kept
>> adding more memory to the heap, which made things worse.  once we turned on
>> debugging metrics for GC it became painfully apparent that due to the huge
>> heap that they had allocated GC was taking ages to complete and stopping to
>> world in the process.  good times :)
>> -pete
>> --
>> Pete Wright
>> pete at nomadlogic.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at lists.nycbug.org
>> http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at lists.nycbug.org
> http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

More information about the talk mailing list