Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 8191 invoked from network); 12 May 2005 05:24:28 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 May 2005 05:24:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 22210 invoked by uid 500); 12 May 2005 05:28:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 22161 invoked by uid 500); 12 May 2005 05:28:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 22148 invoked by uid 99); 12 May 2005 05:28:16 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from anumail4.anu.edu.au (HELO anu.edu.au) (150.203.2.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 May 2005 22:28:16 -0700 Received: from cs.anu.edu.au (mail@cs.anu.edu.au [150.203.164.35]) by anu.edu.au (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j4C5OHlc020243 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 15:24:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from bluejay.anu.edu.au ([150.203.163.42]) by cs.anu.edu.au with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1DW6BF-0006i7-00 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 15:24:17 +1000 Message-ID: <4282E842.8020008@anu.edu.au> Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:23:14 +1000 From: Steve Blackburn User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Thoughts on VM References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.0.3.2, Antispam-Data: 2005.5.11.41 internal X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Bob Griswold wrote: >GC efficiency is very different than the speed at which the JVM runs it's GC >code. > > > In my experience both the GC algorithm (Bob's "GC efficiency") and the performance of the key GC code (Dmitry's point) are important. Having developed a high performance GC core (Dmitry's point), we have spent most of our time developing better GC algorithms (Bob's point). ;-) However, I think Dmitry's post highlights an important trend. Memory performance is very important and architectural trends point to this becoming more and more the case in the future (the relative cost of a memory access and the relative advantage of locality is increasing all the time). --Steve