On Mar 18, 2011, at 5:24 AM, Gennady Kushnir wrote: >>>> 64M seems small to me for a Java app. >>> I did not do any memory regulations myself. It is just default on my >>> absolutely standard deployment system for WO (Xserve G4 , 2GB, MacOS X >>> 10.5, Java 1.5.0_24) >>> >>> I found this 64M doing >>> ps ax | grep "java" >>> >>> It lists all WO apps like this: >>> /usr/bin/java -XX:NewSize=2m -Xmx64m -Xms32m -DWORootDirectory=/System ... >> >> If you look at the entire line, you will often see these set multiple times >> with different values. The last one is what is used. > > I could not find any other values set in that line... > So Chuk, you also propose to raise this default?
The default is probably too small, it is too small for all but small applications with low load. > This causes me to ask another question. What is better scalability > mechanism? Increasing memory for single instance or adding extra > instances? You need to allocate enough memory for each instance to run effectively. They need to have enough to not run out of memory or have "memory starvation". For scalability, add more instances. That gives you more parallel database connections and the ability to process more concurrent requests. Chuck > Raising memory seems more resource effective. So why would I use > multiple instances on single server? Or such means are some kind of > rudiment? > > Gennady -- Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
