From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata Date: 2002-09-05T23:07:50+09:00 Subject: Re: Best GC for Ruby? Hi Matz, I agree in principle of making the best for the average cases. However, because in my application there are so many live objects (network components such as nodes and links are always there; they may be up or down, but they don't "physically" disappear), I am so far off from the average cases. So I really hope that in the next generation of Ruby GC, there will be special provisioning of dealing with this "many live objects" case, at least through the C API's. (Probably even a simple "switch" whether to use the standard GC or the generational GC?) I think Java also has a garbage collector (also mark and sweep type, I think), and Java has been used in large-scale enterprise applications. Can we at least try to understand how Java deal with the scalability issue of mark-and-sweep GC? Regards, Bill ============================================================================= Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > Generational GC performs quite well if there are bunch of live > objects. But when we implemented the generational GC for Ruby, the > write barrier cost wasn't trivial. As a result, we lost performance > for avarage cases. Probably more efficient write barrier such as card > marking may help. We will try again someday. > matz.