Good plan. I'll take a look at the heap analysis and see where its all
being eaten up and report back.

Thanks

Bruce

On 10/11/2010 22:26, "Richard S. Hall" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 11/10/10 16:07, Jackson, Bruce wrote:
>> Yes, the issue I have is that the cached jarfile manifests are taking
>> around 30% of the total heap used by our application, and since we're
>> running embedded into an Android app and therefore have a maximum heap
>> size of only 16Mb, its something that¹s grabbing my attention.
>>
>> Do you know: is there a great deal of difference in runtime heap usage
>> between 2.0.5 and 3.x?
>
>I have no idea, but the JAR manifest usage should be the same, since it
>still works the same way. I wouldn't expect a great deal of difference.
>
>Again, I'm willing to work on some ideas for improving memory
>consumption if you are willing to do the analysis...
>
>-> richard
>
>> On 10/11/2010 14:56, "Richard S. Hall"<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/10/10 6:58, Jackson, Bruce wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know: is there a way of controlling or reducing the heap
>>>> usage of the class org.apache.felix.framework.util.JarFileX in Felix
>>>> 2.0.5?
>>>> Alternatively: does anyone know if this has been made more efficient
>>>>in
>>>> 3?
>>> That class is a simple extension to JarFile to work around a bug for
>>> improper handling of directory entries. I find it hard to believe that
>>> it could be causing any significant heap usage since it maintains no
>>> state. I think you are just seeing the heap being used by JarFile
>>>itself.
>>>
>>> If I recall, I think the memory issues stem from JarFile's manifest
>>> parsing. I actually wrote some code to do the parsing myself and it did
>>> appear to help memory usage, but not performance. Since I was looking
>>> for performance improvement, I didn't continue with it.
>>>
>>> If you wanted to test the impact to see if it is worthwhile, I could
>>> look into it again. If so, open a JIRA issue and we can try to work
>>> together on it.
>>>
>>> ->  richard
>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>>

Reply via email to