Big Data applications suffer from unpredictable and unacceptably high pause times due to Garbage Collection (GC). This is the case in latency-sensitive applications such as on-line credit-card fraud detection, graph-based computing for analysis on social networks, etc. Such pauses compromise latency requirements of the whole application stack and result from applications' aggressive buffering caching of data, exposing an ill-suited GC design, which assumes that most objects will die young and does not consider that applications hold large amounts of middle-lived data in memory. To avoid such pauses, we propose NG2C, a new GC algorithm that combines pretenuring with an N-Generational heap. By being able to allocate objects into different generations, NG2C is able to group objects with similar lifetime profiles in the same generation. By allocating objects with similar lifetime profiles close to each other, i.e. in the same generation, we avoid object promotion (copying between generations) and heap fragmentation (which leads to heap compactions) both responsible for most of the duration of HotSpot GC pause times. NG2C is implemented for the OpenJDK 8 HotSpot Java Virtual Machine, as an extension of the Garbage First GC. We evaluate NG2C using Cassandra, Lucene, and GraphChi with three different GCs: Garbage First (G1), Concurrent Mark Sweep (CMS), and NG2C. Results show that NG2C decreases the worst observable GC pause time by up to 94.8 for Cassandra, 85.0 for Lucene and 96.45 for GraphChi, when compared to current collectors (G1 and CMS). In addition, NG2C has no negative impact on application throughput or memory usage.
@cite_27: 
@cite_10: Pretenuring long-lived and immortal objects into infrequently or never collected regions reduces garbage collection costs significantly. However, extant approaches either require computationally expensive, application-specific, off-line profiling, or consider only allocation sites common to all programs, i.e. invoked by the virtual machine rather than application programs. In contrast, we show how a simple program analysis, combined with an object lifetime knowledge bank, can be exploited to match both runtime system and application program structure with object lifetimes. The complexity of the analysis is linear in the size of the program, so need not be run ahead of time. We obtain performance gains between 6-77 in GC timeallagainst a generational copying collector for several SPEC jvm98 programs.
@cite_23: Pretenuring can reduce copying costs in garbage collectors by allocating long-lived objects into regions that the garbage collector with rarely, if ever, collect. We extend previous work on pretenuring as follows. (1) We produce pretenuring advice that is neutral with respect to the garbage collector algorithm and configuration. We thus can and do combine advice from different applications. We find that predictions using object lifetimes at each allocation site in Java prgroams are accurate, which simplifies the pretenuring implementation. (2) We gather and apply advice to applications and the Jalapeno JVM, a compiler and run-time system for Java written in Java. Our results demonstrate that building combined advice into Jalapeno from different application executions improves performance regardless of the application Jalapeno is compiling and executing. This build-time advice thus gives user applications some benefits of pretenuring without any application profiling. No previous work pretenures in the run-time system. (3) We find that application-only advice also improves performance, but that the combination of build-time and application-specific advice is almost always noticeably better. (4) Our same advice improves the performance of generational and Older First colleciton, illustrating that it is collector neutral.
Our proposed profiler, (presented in Section ) builds upon previous works @cite_27 @cite_23 @cite_10 by resorting to stack analyzes. However, opposed to previous works, it accurately estimates in which generation an object should be allocated in. In other words, our profiler answers the question of how long will the object probably live while previous profilers only tell us if the object will probably live enough to be considered old (this information is not sufficient to take advantage of an N-Generational heap).