This library should be considered as experimental and not production ready.
(No performance test results available yet - you may try the ohc-benchmark tool)
OHC shall provide a good performance on both commodity hardware and big systems using non-uniform-memory-architectures.
Java7 VM that support 64bit field CAS and sun.misc.Unsafe (Oracle JVMs on x64 Intel CPUs).
OHC uses multiple segments. Each segment contains its own independent off-heap hash map. Synchronization occurs on critical sections that access a off-heap hash map. Necessary serialization and deserialization is performed outside of these critical sections.
Concurrent eviction is performed using either LRU (double linked list), timestamp or counter (2Q). Note that the last two replacement strategies are not yet implemented.
Use the class OHCacheBuilder to configure all necessary parameter like
- number of segments (must be a power of 2), defaults to number-of-cores * 2
- hash table size (must be a power of 2), defaults to 8192
- load factory, defaults to .75
- capacity for data over the whole cache
- eviction configuration (cleanup-trigger-free-percentage triggers a cleanup, cleanup-target-free-percentage defines the target free capacity)
- key and value serializers
Generally you should work with a large hash table. The larger the hash table, the shorter the linked-list in each hash partition - that means less linked-link walks and increased performance.
The total amount of required off heap memory is the total capacity plus hash table. Each hash bucket (currently) requires 8 bytes - so the formula is capacity + segment_count * hash_table_size * 8.
When using a very huge number of objects in a very large heap, Virtual machines will suffer from increased GC pressure since it basically has to inspect each and every object whether it can be collected and has to access all memory pages. A cache shall keep a hot set of objects accessible for fast access (e.g. omit disk or network roundtrips). The only solution is to use native memory - and there you will end up with the choice either to use some native code (C/C++) via JNI or use direct memory access.
Native code using C/C++ via JNI has the drawback that you have to naturally write C/C++ code for each and every platform. Although most Unix OS (Linux, OSX, BSD, Solaris) are quite similar when dealing with things like compare-and-swap or Posix libraries, you usually also want to support the other platform (Windows).
Both native code and direct memory access have the drawback that they have to "leave" the JVM "context" -want to say that access to off heap memory is slower than access to data in the Java heap and that each JNI call has some "escape from JVM context" cost.
But off heap memory is great when you have to deal with a huge amount of several/many GB of cache memory since that dos not put any pressure on the Java garbage collector. Let the Java GC do its job for the application where this library does its job for the cached data.
Copyright (C) 2014 Robert Stupp, Koeln, Germany, robert-stupp.de
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License.