Experiments in program optimisation

To allocate or to pool?

Tags: Java C++ optimisation real-time

17 Jan 2019

In the previous article we developed a fast queue between native (C++) and Java code, which can be used as a clock generator with a fairly small tick interval (20 ns). Today we’ll use it as a measurement tool.

Today’s question applies to message processors: is it better to allocate a fresh buffer for each arriving message, or to allocate them all upfront, collect in a pool and re-use them? I witnessed numerous discussions on this issue. The old-school C programmers prefer not to allocate any memory if it is possible, while the modern-days Java paradigm suggests allocating objects left, right and centre.

Let’s try to investigate it and get a definite answer.

This problem is applicable to both batch and real-time (or near-real-time) processors. In the former case the only important factor is the overall throughput of the program; in the latter case we also have the latency issue: we can miss incoming messages if processing some of them takes too long.

We’ll look at both of these cases.

There is in fact a third case: a network request processor, such as an HTTP server. Like a batch processor, it must be reliable (not to drop messages), and the throughput must be high. Like a real-time processor, it imposes latency restrictions, although they aren’t so strict. We won’t look at this case here, concentrating on the other two.

Note on real-time programming

Some readers may have wondered why someone even tried doing anything real-time in Java. Everyone knows that Java isn’t a real-time platform. For that matter, ordinary Windows or Linux are not real-time operation systems, either. No one would write a true real-time program (such as an auto-pilot) in Java. In this article by real-time programs we’ll mean near-real-time ones: those where small event loss is permitted. A good example is a network traffic analyser, where it is usually not a tragedy if a couple hundred packets out of a million is lost (unless this is a security monitor, of course). Such programs can be developed quite successfully in just about any language, including Java, and run on normal operation systems. We’ll use a very simplified model of such an analyser as a sample program.

The effects of the garbage collector

Why is the choice between allocating buffers and pooling them important at all? In the case of Java, the most important factor is the Garbage Collector (GC), because it really can pause the entire program execution (it is called “Stop the world”).

In its simplest form, the garbage collector:

Real garbage collectors employ various tricks to improve performance, eliminate long pauses and reduce sensitivity to the number of live objects:

These improvements don’t come for free and often require some expensive code generation overheads, such as write-barriers and even read-barriers. This slows execution down but, in many cases, is still justified by reducing garbage collection pauses.

However, these improvements, in general, don’t affect the two basic GC rules: the GC is invoked more often when more memory is allocated, and it runs longer when there are more live objects.

Our two approaches regarding the buffers differ in their memory allocation patterns. The allocating strategy usually keeps the number of live objects small, but causes the GC to be invoked often. The pooling option reduces memory allocation but keeps all the buffers as live Java objects (sometimes more than one object per buffer). The GC is called less often, but runs longer.

The reason we create many buffers in the pooling version is that we’re dimensioning for a high demand of them – for a situation, hopefully short in time, when many of them are used at the same time. In the case of the allocation solution this means frequent and long-running GC – a super-challenge.

Obviously, buffers are not the only objects allocated by programs. Some programs keep so many permanently allocated data structures (maps, caches, transaction logs), that buffers fall into insignificance. Some others allocate so many temporary objects (e.g. some message parsers tend to create an object for each entity parsed), that buffer allocation falls into insignificance. This problem and this investigation are not applicable to these cases. However, it is worthwhile to establish the boundaries.

Other possible problems

Memory allocation on its own (ignoring the GC) has some costs. Obtaining the address of a new object is usually quick (especially for Java implementations that employ thread-local memory pools). However, there is also zeroing the memory and calling the constructor if there is one.

On the other hand, pooling involves some overheads, too. Usage of every buffer must be carefully tracked, so that it can be returned to the free pool as soon as it becomes vacant. This can become quite tricky in the multi-threaded case. Failure to track buffers may lead to buffers leak, similar to a classic memory leak in C programs.

Mixed version (partial pooling)

One often used approach is to keep a pool of certain capacity, and allocate buffers when demand exceeds this capacity. The freed buffers are only returned into the pool if it isn’t full, otherwise discarded. This approach offers a good compromise between pooling and allocating, so it is worth testing.

The test

We’ll imitate a typical network analyser – an application that captures packets from a network interface, decodes protocols and collects statistics. We’ll use a very simplified model of it, which consists of:

Today we’ll limit the study to the simplest, single-threaded, setup: the processor and the data source will run in the same thread. We’ll consider the multi-threaded case later.

To write less code, we’ll implement the mixed solution in the same way as the pooled one, the only difference being the pool size: MIX_POOL_SIZE or POOL_SIZE.

Two data sources will be used:

We’ll consider three cases for the tests:

These cases correspond to different real-world scenarios of a message processor:

Here are the values we’ll use:

Variable Case A Case B Case C
POOL_SIZE 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
MIX_POOL_SIZE 200,000 200,000 200,000
INTERNAL_QUEUE_SIZE 10,000 100,000 495,000
STORED_COUNT 10,000 100,000 495,000

To save space, I won’t publish code snippets here. The full source code is in the repository

Batch test

To measure the cost of our test framework, we’ll introduce one more buffer allocating strategy: a dummy one, where we allocate just one packet and use it everywhere.

We’ll be running on a dual Xeon® CPU E5-2620 v3 @ 2.40GHz, using Linux with a 3.17.4 kernel and Java 1.8.142 with the heap of 2 Gb. We’ll start by using a traditional CMS garbage collector, with the following command line:

# java -Xloggc:gclog -Xms2g -Xmx2g -server Main X [strategy] batch

where X is the case label (A, B, or C), and [strategy] is the name of the strategy (dummy, alloc, mix or pool).

Let’s run all the cases and measure time per packet, in nanoseconds:

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Dummy 59 57 66
Allocation 400 685 4042
Mix 108 315 466
Pooling 346 470 415

The allocating strategy is by far the worst (awful in case C), which seems to answer our question (to allocate or to pool): to pool! The mixed strategy is the best in cases A and B, and just a bit worse on C, which makes it a perfect strategy for the batch test.

We also see that our test code works rather fast (60 ns), so memory allocation, zeroing and garbage collection really slow things down a lot.

Three possible factors can contribute to poor performance of this test: frequent allocation, frequent garbage collection and high garbage collection cost. The allocation strategy in case C suffers from all three; no wonder its performance is so pathetic.

In the case A we witnessed a competition between frequent, but fast GC and rare, but slow one (allocation and zeroing costs added in the first option). The slow GC has won.

The overall picture, however, becomes much less optimistic, and the victory of pooling becomes much less obvious when we look at the garbage collection statistics (written to gclog file by the -Xloggc option in the command line). Let’s look at these files. All of them contain lots of records about GC pauses, differing only in their duration, frequency, and type (“Allocation Failure” and “Full GC (ergonomics)”). Here are the analysis results on these files:

Case Strategy Max GC pause, msAvg GC pause, msGC count / secGC fractionObject count, milGC time / object, ns
Allocation 44 9 4.5 4% 0.045 194
Mix 35 6 1.9 1% 0.639 10
Pooling 940 823 0.8 67% 3.039 271
Allocation 176 66 4.5 30% 1.134 58
Mix 63 40 0.8 3% 1.134 34
Pooling 911 712 0.6 40% 3.534 201
Allocation 866 365 2.3 89% 5.454 67
Mix 790 488 0.6 27% 5.478 89
Pooling 576 446 0.6 29% 5.508 81

Here “GC count” is the average number of GC invocations per second, and “GC fraction” is the percentage of execution time spent in GC.

According to the GC pauses data, the pooling strategy is actually the worst one when it comes to the real-time operation. It simply does not work – nothing that shows pauses of nearly one second can be considered real-time. We also see that there is no good solution for case C. Neither of our strategies work there.

The allocation case C is an exceptionally bad one: it spends 89% of its time in GC. Some more is spent in allocation and zeroing. Pooling, however, can also be bad (67% in case A). It is unclear why the GC load is so much heavier in case A than in B and C.

Just out of curiosity I measured the number of live objects (as reported by JVisualVM after invoking GC) and the average GC time per object (the last two columns). The GC time isn’t exactly proportional to the live count, but the overall rule that higher count makes it slower holds. The time per object is surprisingly high. Roughly 100 ns per object makes it 100ms per one million objects, and one million objects isn’t really that many. Most of realistic Java programs have more. Some have much more (hundreds of millions). It looks like those programs can’t ever perform anywhere close to real-time – at least, using the CMS garbage collector.

Real-time test

Now it’s time to check our predictions for the real-time test. This is what the command line and the output looks like for the real-time test with the allocation strategy and the source interval of 1000 ns for case A:

# java -Djava.library.path=. -Xloggc:gclog -Xms2g -Xmx2g \
       -server Main A alloc 1000
Input queue size: 100000
Input queue capacity, ms: 99.99999999999999
Internal queue: 1000 = 1 ms
Stored: 1000
  6.0;   6.0; lost:        0
  7.0;   1.0; lost:        0
  8.0;   1.0; lost:     5717
  9.0;   1.0; lost:        0
 10.1;   1.0; lost:        0
 11.0;   1.0; lost:        0
 12.0;   1.0; lost:        0

No packets are lost afterwards, which means that the test program can handle the load (we tolerate some initial lack of performance).

Can we, perhaps, increase the incoming packet rate? We can, with gradual deterioration of results. At 500 ns, we get about 80K lost packets after 27 sec and no loss later. The output for 300 ns looks like this:

 5.5;   5.5; lost:   279184
 5.8;   0.3; lost:   113569
 6.2;   0.3; lost:   111238
 6.5;   0.4; lost:   228014
 6.9;   0.3; lost:   143214
 7.5;   0.6; lost:   296348
 8.1;   0.6; lost:  1334374

Experiments show that the minimal delay where packets are not lost is 400 ns (2.5M packets/sec), which matches the result of the batch test very well.

Let’s now look at the pooling strategy:

# java -Djava.library.path=. -Xloggc:gclog -Xms2g -Xmx2g \
       -server Main A pool 1000
Test: POOL, size = 1000000
Input queue size: 100000
Input queue capacity, ms: 99.99999999999999
Internal queue: 1000 = 1 ms
Stored: 1000
  6.0;   6.0; lost:        0
  7.0;   1.0; lost:        0
  8.0;   1.0; lost:        0
 10.3;   2.3; lost:  1250212
 11.3;   1.0; lost:        0
 12.3;   1.0; lost:        0
 13.3;   1.0; lost:        0
 15.0;   1.8; lost:   756910
 16.0;   1.0; lost:        0
 17.0;   1.0; lost:        0
 18.0;   1.0; lost:        0
 19.8;   1.8; lost:   768783

This is what we predicted from our batch test experience: the pooling packet processor can’t handle the load, because its GC pauses are longer than the input queue capacity. A quick look at the gclog file shows that typical pauses are the same as in the batch test (about 800 ms), and GC runs roughly once every four seconds.

This is very disappointing. No matter what we do, the pooling strategy can’t handle even case A, not to mention B or C. Increasing the heap size will make GC less frequent but won’t affect its duration. Increase in source packet interval won’t help, either – for instance, at the interval of 10,000 ns we lose about 80K packets every 40 seconds. The only thing that helps is increasing the capacity of the source queue to some value above our GC pauses (one second and more), but this isn’t always possible.

Here is the combined result for all the tests. The following legend is used:

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Allocation 600 lost: 0.8% (0.3%) lost: 75% (20%)
Mix 150 350 lost: 9% (0.6%)
Pooling lost: 17% (0.5%) lost: 17% (0.5%) lost: 9% (0.6%)

Note that our pool was allocated to handle case C. The same pool, but dimensioned for case B is called “Mix” and works quite well. This means that pooling is still better than allocating for the cases that we can handle, and there are cases that we can’t handle.

Increasing the heap size reduces losses to almost bearable and “almost solves” the problem (although it doesn’t reach the packet loss level of a couple hundred out of a million discussed above; the losses look more like 5000 per million). As one could expect, it works much better in the pooling case. However, this approach looks ridiculous: who wants to use 10 Gb of RAM instead of 2 Gb just to reduce the packet loss count from 17% to 0.5%?

G1 garbage collector

Until now, we’ve been using the CMS (concurrent mark-sweep) garbage collector. These days it’s considered outdated, and the standard one is the G1 (“garbage first”) collector. It became standard in Java 9 but was available in Java 8 as a run-time option. This one is supposed to be much more real-time-friendly. For instance, you can specify the maximal allowed GC pause in the command line. This seems to be the way to go, so let’s repeat our tests using G1.

Here is the command line for a batch test:

java -Xloggc:gclog -Xms2g -Xmx2g -XX:+UseG1GC -XX:MaxGCPauseMillis=80 \
     -server Main alloc batch

And here are the results for the batch test (the legend: G1 time / CMS time):

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Dummy 78 / 59 70 / 57 81 / 66
Allocation 424 / 400 640 / 685 4300 / 4042
Mix 134 / 108 364 / 315 625 / 466
Pooling 140 / 346 355 / 470 740 / 415

In most cases, the execution became slower, between 10% and 130%, with one notable exception: pooling became faster in cases A and B.

Now let’s analyse the garbage collector logs. It is more complex now, since not every line in a G1 log indicates a pause. Some report asynchronous operation, which doesn’t stop the program execution.

Case Strategy Max GC pause, msAvg GC pause, msGC count / secGC fractionObject count, milGC time / object, ns
Allocation 56 20 2.4 5% 0.045 444
Mix 43 24 0.5 1% 0.639 38
Pooling 47 21 1.3 3% 3.039 7
Allocation 85 48 5.8 28% 1.134 42
Mix 81 65 0.3 2% 1.134 57
Pooling 76 62 0.6 3% 3.534 17
Allocation 732 118 2.4 28% 5.454 21
Mix 172 110 2.3 25% 5.478 20
Pooling 173 117 2.0 23% 5.508 21

This looks much better than with CMS and promises a working solution for case B. Let’s run the real-time test:

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Allocation 750 2000 lost: 76% (13%)
Mix 200 600 lost: 4% (1%)
Pooling 200 600 lost: 4.4% (0.8%)

The G1 collector causes mixed feelings: more tests produce results; however, those that do, perform much worse than using traditional CMS. The G1 isn’t a magical tool that solves all the problems: we still have no solution for case C.

Pooling still works better than allocating.


Let’s now go through a time warp and skip from Java 8 straight to Java 11, which has a completely new feature: the garbage collector called ZGC, advertised as capable of handling hundreds of million objects in terabyte heaps.

At the time of writing this article, this garbage collector was only available on Linux and only as an experimental feature. Let’s try it.

The command line looks like this:

java -Xloggc:gclog -Xms2g -Xmx2g -XX:+UnlockExperimentalVMOptions -XX:+UseZGC 
     -server Main A alloc batch

Here are the batch test results (the legend is ZGC time / G1 time):

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Dummy 72 / 78 66 / 70 84 / 81
Allocation 523 / 424 800 / 640 1880 / 4300
Mix 108 / 134 403 / 364 436 / 625
Pooling 109 / 140 403 / 355 453 / 740

The performance went a bit down in some cases and a bit up in some others. In general, it feels like this GC really handles bigger heaps better than the previous ones.

I haven’t found an option to dump the full ZGC log with pause times, so I skip this study for now. Here are the real-time results for ZGC:

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Allocation 540 820 lost: 44% (1.7%)
Mix 120 420 450
Pooling 130 420 460

This is great! Congratulations to Java developers. All our cases are covered. One can argue that 450 ns per packet is too much (only two million packets per second), but previously we couldn’t do this. The figures for other cases also look good. Pooling still looks better than allocating.

Using pre-allocated native buffers, CMS

Although ZGC seems to solve our problems, we don’t want to stop here. After all, it is still new and experimental. Firstly, what if we can improve performance of traditional garbage collectors? Secondly, can we get better throughput with ZGC?

The observed GC performance for traditional collectors seems a bit low, and delays per object figures seem rather high. One idea of why it could be so is that our memory allocation patterns are different from those the GCs were tuned at. Java programs allocate objects whenever they feel like it, that’s normal. However, usually they allocate “normal” objects (structures of several fields), not big arrays. What if this makes a difference?

Here’s a plan. We’ll move these buffers off heap and make the heap smaller. We allocate them in native memory using direct byte buffers. Then we try our approaches, with one important difference. Allocation of direct byte buffers is rather expensive (among other things, it invokes System.gc()), and deallocation isn’t exactly cheap either (it is done using finalizers that get stored in a special queue and run from a special thread). That’s why in both our allocating and pooling versions we will pool these buffers, and we’ll do it off-heap. Apart from that, the allocating version will allocate packet objects each time they are needed and the pooling version will keep them in a collection. Although the number of packets will be the same as before, the total number of objects will be smaller, because where previously we had a byte buffer and a byte array, now we only have a byte buffer.

One can argue that the “allocation” strategy now isn’t a true “allocation” anymore: we must still implement some pooling scheme for native buffers. This is true; but we’ll still test its performance.

Let’s start with CMS GC, batch test. Here is the command line:

java -Xloggc:gclog -Xms1g -Xmx1g -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize=2g -server \
      Main A native-alloc batch

The Java heap size has been reduced by the total size of all the arrays (one gigabyte).

Here are the batch results:

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Dummy 50 53 58
Allocation 89 253 950
Mix 83 221 298
Pooling 79 213 260

The results (except for Allocation case C) look very good and all of them are much better than anything we’ve seen so far. This seems to be a perfect option for batch processing.

Let’s look at real-time results:

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Allocation 140 lost: 0.8% lost: 34%
Mix 130 250; lost: 0.0025% lost: 0.7%
Pooling 120 300; lost: 0.03% lost: 0.7%

Note the new notation: “250; lost: 0.0025%” means that, while we still lose packets (loss is measured, as usual, at 1000 ns interval), the loss is small enough to raise the question of the smallest suitable interval. In short, this is an “almost working” solution. We can see why if we look at the GC logs.

The GC log for pooling case C looks like this:

60.618: [GC (Allocation Failure)  953302K->700246K(1010688K), 0.0720599 secs]
62.457: [GC (Allocation Failure)  973142K->717526K(1010176K), 0.0583657 secs]
62.515: [Full GC (Ergonomics)  717526K->192907K(1010176K), 0.4102448 secs]
64.652: [GC (Allocation Failure)  465803K->220331K(1011712K), 0.0403231 secs]

Roughly every two seconds there is a short run of the GC, which collects about 200MB, but memory usage still climbs by 20MB each time. Eventually, we run out of memory and every 60 sec there is a 400-msec GC, which causes loss of about 350K packets. This isn’t too bad.

The “B” case is even better: the full GC is only called every 1100 seconds, which roughly corresponds to 0.03% of lost packets (300 out of one million). Even less so for the mixing scheme. This makes even production use of this solution possible.

Native buffers, G1

Here are the batch results:

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Dummy 62 63 79
Allocation 108 239 1100
Mix 117 246 432
Pooling 111 249 347

The results are better than without native buffers, but worse than the CMS batch results.

Here are the results for the real-time tests:

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Allocation 150 350 lost: 6.5%
Mix 150 400 800; lost: 0.075%
Pooling 160 500 700

Although it looks a bit worse than the CMS results in case A, and the achieved results in case B are worse than “almost achieved” results there, these results demonstrate one incredible feature we’ve never seen before: they cover all the cases. Even pooling case C is now working.

Native buffers, ZGC

Now let’s try the ZGC at the batch test (results are compared with the ZGC results without native buffers):

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Dummy 63 / 72 76 / 66 102 / 84
Allocation 127 / 523 290 / 800 533 / 1880
Mix 100 / 108 290 / 403 400 / 436
Pooling 118 / 109 302 / 403 330 / 453

There is a significant improvement almost everywhere, especially in allocation tests. However, G1, and especially CMS, results are still much better.

Finally, here are the real-time results:

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Allocation 170 380 550
Mix 120 320 440
Pooling 130 320 460

Again, congratulations to the Java engineers. For the first time ever, we’ve got a working solution for all strategies and all cases. Even allocating strategy in case C works now (although when native buffers are used it is not completely “allocating” strategy; besides, the pooling solution still shows better results).

Trying C++

We’ve seen that memory management is really affecting performance of Java programs. We could try to reduce these overheads by employing our own off-heap memory manager (I’m still going to explore this technique in one of the following articles). However, if we’re prepared to go that far, we could just as well try writing in C++.

The garbage collection issue does not exist in C++; we can keep as many live objects as we wish, it won’t introduce any pauses. It may reduce performance due to poor caching, but that is another story.

This makes the choice between allocation and pooling obvious: no matter how small the allocation costs are, pooling costs are zero. So pooling is bound to win. Let’s test it.

Our first version will be a direct translation of the Java version, with the same design features. Specifically, we’ll allocate IPHeader and IPV4Address objects when needed. This makes the dummy version leak memory, as the same buffer object is re-used many times without returning to the pool, and no one deletes those header objects in the process.

Here are the batch results:

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Dummy 145 164 164
Allocation 270 560 616
Mix 115 223 307
Pooling 111 233 274

The results look good but, surprisingly, not great. We’ve seen better results at native-buffers CMS solution in Java. Some other Java results are also better. The allocation strategy results are as bad as most of those in Java, and, surprisingly, dummy results are bad. This points to memory allocation being quite expensive in C++, much more expensive than in Java, even without the GC.

Here are the real-time figures:

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Allocation 520 950 950
Mix 280 320 550
Pooling 250 420 480

The figures don’t look bad (at least, all the cases are covered), but the figures from Java using ZDC and native buffers look better. The way to go in C++ must be to reduce memory allocation wherever possible.

C++: no allocation

The previous solution was implemented in a Java fashion: allocate an object (such as an IPv4Address), when it is needed. In Java there was no alternative, but in C++ there is: we can reserve the memory for the most commonly used objects right inside our buffers. This will result in reducing memory allocation during packet processing to zero. We’ll call it the flat C++ version.

Here are the batch results:

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Dummy 16 16 16
Allocation 163 409 480
Mix 35 153 184
Pooling 34 148 171

All the figures are much better than those of our Java tests. The mixed and pooling results are also very good in the absolute sense.

And the real-time results look like this:

Strategy Case A Case B Case C
Allocation 220 650 700
Mix 50 220 240
Pooling 50 190 230

Some Java versions provide better results for the allocating strategy; one (native ZGC) even performs better in the case C, which can be attributed to slow and unpredictable nature of the C++ memory manager. All the other versions, however, perform very well. The pooling version can handle four million packets per second in case C and five million in case B, which reaches our desired value. The speed of case A is absolutely fantastic (twenty million), but we must remember that in this case we discard the packets.

Since no memory allocation is performed at all in pooling versiuon, the difference in speed between cases A, B and C can only be explained by different total volume of used memory – more used memory and random access patterns reduce cache efficiency.


Let’s summarise all the results in one table. We’ll leave out dummy strategy results and the results obtained with ridiculously high memory heap sizes.

Let’s first look at the batch test:

Solution Strategy Case A Case B Case C
CMS Allocation 400 685 4042
Mix 108 315 466
Pooling 346 470 415
G1 Allocation 424 640 4300
Mix 134 364 625
Pooling 140 355 740
ZGC Allocation 523 800 1880
Mix 108 403 436
Pooling 109 403 453
Native CMS Allocation 89 253 950
Mix 83 221 298
Pooling 79 213 260
Native G1 Allocation 108 239 1100
Mix 117 246 432
Pooling 111 249 347
Native ZGC Allocation 127 290 533
Mix 100 290 400
Pooling 118 302 330
C++ Allocation 270 560 616
Mix 115 223 307
Pooling 111 233 274
C++ flat Allocation 163 409 480
Mix 35 153 184
Pooling 34 148 171

The absolute best result in every column is marked green, and all three of them happened to be from the flat C++.

The best and the second best Java results are marked yellow and red. They come from “Native CMS” family, which shows that it is too early to write off the good old CMS garbage collector. It still works well for batch processing.

And finally, here is the summary of the results that were our main interest, those of the real-time test:

Strategy Solution Case A Case B Case C
CMS Allocation 600 lost: 0.8% lost: 75%
Mix 150 350 lost: 9%
Pooling lost: 17% lost: 17% lost: 9
G1 Allocation 750 2000 lost: 76%
Mix 200 600 lost: 4%
Pooling 200 600 lost: 4.4%
ZGC Allocation 540 820 lost: 44%
Mix 120 420 450
Pooling 130 420 460
Native CMS Allocation 140 lost: 0.8% lost: 34%
Mix 130 lost: 0.0025% lost: 0.7%
Pooling 120 lost: 0.03% lost: 0.7%
Native G1 Allocation 150 350 lost: 6.5%
Mix 150 400 lost: 0.075%
Pooling 160 500 700
Native ZGC Allocation 170 380 550
Mix 120 320 440
Pooling 130 320 460
C++ Allocation 520 950 950
Mix 280 320 550
Pooling 250 420 480
C++ flat Allocation 220 650 700
Mix 50 220 240
Pooling 50 190 230

The dark grey blocks indicate absence of solution (packets are always lost). Otherwise, the colour scheme is the same. The flat C++ version is the best again, while the best and the second-best Java versions come from all possible solutions, the best being the Native ZGC.


Comments are welcome below or on reddit.

comments powered by Disqus