Jim Cornette wrote:
Edward Yang wrote:
Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
This was actually a clean follow up to a series of posts about memory management in FC and Java came up, hence I forked the thread (too long, anyway) into this thread. So no, it is not the wrong list ;)Gain Paolo Mureddu writes:
Sun should really take care of thier JVM if they want to make Java succeed in *nix. Even their won JVM has many troubles running on their Solaris platform... So this is more a *nix in general issue than just Linux alone.
I agree 100%.
Unfortunately, it looks like you posted your message to the wrong mailing list. This is not the Sun Java mailing list.
Okay, I want to add more about Sun's JVM performance.
I have posted a message to Sun's forum about the memory footprint of the JVM on FC3. Please visit http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=590956 for the message.
So if I understand this a bit, you are running Windows and then using Microsoft virtual machine to run Fedora, then running a java virtual machine and it is being a resource hog?
Did you try to run RHL 8.0, then launch the microsoft virtual machine program through wine to launch Fedora and see if the memory resources are any better?
Jim
Sorry, I think there is some misunderstanding about virutal techonology.
In a virutal hardware box, the guest OS inside it does not know where it is. It may be a litter or much slower than in a real hardware box, but the memory footprint should never been any difference. That's why many developers use Microsoft Virutal PC or VMWare to test there programs. Think about it - you don't have to boot into another OS or go to another computer that may be 50 meters far just to test a small problem of your progarm!
So I think I I have FC3 installed in a real hardware box, the memory footprint of the JVM will be the same.
