You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@jena.apache.org by Adrian Gschwend <ml...@netlabs.org> on 2016/04/27 15:07:38 UTC

Fuseki INSERT: GC overhead limit exceeded

Hi group,

I did some performance tests with different triplestores on a complex
query I had, results can be found here:

https://gist.github.com/ktk/a04e267dd776da2511692e96fc2b5d99#jena-fuseki

So far I tested Virtuoso, Stardog & Blazegraph. Jena fails with GC issues:

[2016-04-26 21:41:47] Fuseki     INFO  [26] 500 GC overhead limit
exceeded (837.944 s)

I found some old post where Rob mentioned this is a TDB design issue. Is
there anything I can do about it or will this query not working with TDB?

You can find the data & query details in my post

regards

Adrian

Re: Fuseki INSERT: GC overhead limit exceeded

Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 27/04/16 17:00, Adrian Gschwend wrote:
> On 27.04.16 17:48, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
>> Depending on version of the Fuseki script the heap setting can be rather
>> low (non aggressive when running on a user machine, not server).
>>
>> JVM_ARGS to the fuseki-server script.
>> JAVA_OPTIONS to the fuseki service script.
>
> ok thanks will do that. Are we talking about -Xmx here?
Yes


>I have 128GB
> available in total, what would you recommend?

Not all of it.  TDB uses space outside the heap.

The right amount depends on the size of the transactions so ther isn't 
one naswer.  Try some numbers like 20G.

(and - general java point - never between 32G and about 48G because 
you'll get LESS stored in that range!)

https://blog.codecentric.de/en/2014/02/35gb-heap-less-32gb-java-jvm-memory-oddities/

	Andy


>
> regards
>
> Adrian
>

Re: Fuseki INSERT: GC overhead limit exceeded

Posted by Adrian Gschwend <ml...@netlabs.org>.
On 27.04.16 17:48, Andy Seaborne wrote:

Hi Andy,

> Depending on version of the Fuseki script the heap setting can be rather
> low (non aggressive when running on a user machine, not server).
> 
> JVM_ARGS to the fuseki-server script.
> JAVA_OPTIONS to the fuseki service script.

ok thanks will do that. Are we talking about -Xmx here? I have 128GB
available in total, what would you recommend?

regards

Adrian

Re: Fuseki INSERT: GC overhead limit exceeded

Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
Adrian,

Depending on version of the Fuseki script the heap setting can be rather 
low (non aggressive when running on a user machine, not server).

JVM_ARGS to the fuseki-server script.
JAVA_OPTIONS to the fuseki service script.

	Andy

On 27/04/16 15:06, Bangalore Akhilesh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had similar problem along with Java Heap running out of memory.
> To address this, I have increased the Heap memory for the JVM. I did not
> see these exceptions after that. Having said that, I have done this fairly
> recently (only few weeks back) and may have to give it some time before the
> exceptions re-surface.
>
> Thanks,
> Akhilesh
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Adrian Gschwend <ml...@netlabs.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi group,
>>
>> I did some performance tests with different triplestores on a complex
>> query I had, results can be found here:
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/ktk/a04e267dd776da2511692e96fc2b5d99#jena-fuseki
>>
>> So far I tested Virtuoso, Stardog & Blazegraph. Jena fails with GC issues:
>>
>> [2016-04-26 21:41:47] Fuseki     INFO  [26] 500 GC overhead limit
>> exceeded (837.944 s)
>>
>> I found some old post where Rob mentioned this is a TDB design issue. Is
>> there anything I can do about it or will this query not working with TDB?
>>
>> You can find the data & query details in my post
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>

Re: Fuseki INSERT: GC overhead limit exceeded

Posted by Bangalore Akhilesh <ba...@gmail.com>.
Hi,

I had similar problem along with Java Heap running out of memory.
To address this, I have increased the Heap memory for the JVM. I did not
see these exceptions after that. Having said that, I have done this fairly
recently (only few weeks back) and may have to give it some time before the
exceptions re-surface.

Thanks,
Akhilesh

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Adrian Gschwend <ml...@netlabs.org> wrote:

> Hi group,
>
> I did some performance tests with different triplestores on a complex
> query I had, results can be found here:
>
> https://gist.github.com/ktk/a04e267dd776da2511692e96fc2b5d99#jena-fuseki
>
> So far I tested Virtuoso, Stardog & Blazegraph. Jena fails with GC issues:
>
> [2016-04-26 21:41:47] Fuseki     INFO  [26] 500 GC overhead limit
> exceeded (837.944 s)
>
> I found some old post where Rob mentioned this is a TDB design issue. Is
> there anything I can do about it or will this query not working with TDB?
>
> You can find the data & query details in my post
>
> regards
>
> Adrian
>