harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregory Shimansky <gshiman...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [rant] Memory options in VM -- why is the default not 'unlimited'
Date Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:16:54 GMT
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 01:53 Alex Blewitt wrote:
> On 31/07/06, Salikh Zakirov <Salikh.Zakirov@intel.com> wrote:
> > Alex Blewitt wrote:
> > > Don't get me wrong; being able to specify minimum/maximum is a
> > > reasonable idea for optimising a VM if you know what to put; but by
> > > default, there shouldn't be any arbitrary limitations based on the
> > > value of a #define constant ...
> >
> > So, would you be satisfied if the VM defaulted to, say, 3/4 of total
> > physical memory available? (not a #define, but a value detected at
> > startup)
> >
> > I would like to get some concrete practical conclusion from the whole
> > discussion.
>
> The question should be: "Why have a maximum?" and not "What should the
> maximum be?" An algorithm that implicitly assumes a maximum is wrong.

There is a method Runtime.freeMemory() which returns the memory available in 
the heap. I wonder what it should return when there is no limit.

Some applications may rely on the value which this method returns. Just 
returning Long.MAX_VALUE may lead to confusion.

-- 
Gregory Shimansky, Intel Middleware Products Division

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message