Go’s march to low-latency GC

Re:Go’s march to low-latency GC by pcwalton on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @01:30PM (#12044593)

> Look up the Azul Systems pgc. That is more or less the holy grail, but it is patented out the wazoo, and is a commercial implementation only.

That's what I was alluding to in the parenthetical. According to the paper, C4 trades off a significant amount of throughput for reduced latency. That's what you want for many applications, and C4 is a great advance for those apps, but throughput is very important for most workloads, so HotSpot's GC ends up yielding a good balance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go’s march to low-latency GC by SEJeff on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @03:09PM (#12045173)

Touche, I clearly didn't fully understand your original statement. You're entirely correct in this case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go’s march to low-latency GC by snaky on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @06:33PM (#12046328)

So we finally reaching the point where batch and interactive jobs are clearly separated because the very different tradeoffs they need. http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Eternal_Mainframe.h... indeed.

[ Parent | on HN ]