

Brief comparison of Java 7 HotSpot Garbage Collectors - omsn
http://www.omsn.de/blog/brief-comparison-of-java-7-hotspot-garbage-collectors

======
fizx
> CMS: Best for: don't use this, use G1 instead

[Citation needed]

As of a couple months ago, the experts I polled considered G1 bleeding edge.

~~~
Afforess
Anecdotally, I've found the CMS is still a bit better (10-15% faster) than the
newer G1, but the G1 has some features which make me inclined to use it. The
G1 will return memory to the system, which I have never observed the CMS do,
despite having tons of unused memory in my Java applications.

~~~
jwr
I also found the CMS collector to be both faster and generating latency
numbers with less variance for our application. But, I last checked a good
year ago and things might have changed since then.

------
theatrus2
In my experience, G1 basically doesn't yet work well under high garbage high
load scenarios. Its responsiveness was worse than untuned CMS, and
significantly worse than tuned CMS.

I'd love for it to work since long pauses are the bane of any garbage
collected server :)

~~~
facboy
That has been my experience too. At least it doesn't seg-fault all the time
any more.

------
jerven
CMS or G1 for my application are similar in performance. The killer is still a
full stop the world pause when the heap is totally filled. Other wise G1 for
beta.sparql.uniprot.org performs slightly better. On average lower memory
utilisation and faster collection times. This is with a 30-100 GB heap on a 64
core machine.

