Develop Reference

Why does JVM need a maximum memory capacity? [duplicate]

In the spirit of question Java: Why does MaxPermSize exist?, I'd like to ask why the Oracle JVM uses a fixed upper limit for the size of its memory allocation pool.
The default is 1/4 of your physical RAM (with upper & lower limit); as a consequence, if you have a memory-hungry application you have to manually change the limit (parameter -Xmx), or your app will perform poorly, possible even crash with an OutOfMemoryError.
Why does this fixed limit even exist? Why does the JVM not allocate memory as needed, like native programs do on most operating systems?
This would solve a whole class of common problems with Java software (just Google to see how many hints there are on the net on solving problems by setting -Xmx).
Edit:
Some answers point out that this will protect the rest of the system from a Java program with a run-away memory leak; without the limit this would bring the whole system down by exhausting all memory. This is true. However, it is equally true for any other program, and modern OSes already let you limit the maximum memory for a programm (Linux ulimit, Windows "Job Objects"). So this does not really answer the question, which is "Why does the JVM do it differently from most other programs / runtime environments?".

Why does this fixed limit even exist? Why does the JVM not allocate memory as needed, like native programs do on most operating systems?
The reason is NOT that the GC needs to know before hand what the maximum heap size can be. The JVM is clearly capable of expanding its heap ... up to the maximum ... and I'm sure it would be a relatively small change to remove that maximum. (After all, other Java implementations do this.) And it would equally be possible to have a simple way to say "use as much memory as you like" to the JVM.
I'm sure that the real reason is to protect the host operating system against the effects of faulty Java applications using all available memory. Running with an unbounded heap is potentially dangerous.
Basically, many operating systems (e.g. Windows, Linux) suffer serious performance degradation if some application tries to use all available memory. On Linux for example, the system may thrash badly, resulting in everything on the system running incredibly slowly. In the worst case, the system won't be able to start new processes, and existing processes may start crashing when the operating system refuses their (legitimate) requests for more memory. Often, the only option is to reboot.
If the JVM ran with an unbounded heap by default, any time someone ran a Java program with a storage leak ... or that simply tried to use too much memory ... they would risk bringing down the entire operating system.
In summary, having a default heap bound is a good thing because:
it protects the health of your system,
it encourages developers / users to think about memory usage by "hungry" applications, and
it potentially allows GC optimizations. (As suggested by other answers: it is plausible, but I cannot confirm this.)
EDIT
In response to the comments:
It doesn't really matter why Sun's JVMs live within a bounded heap, where other applications don't. They do, and advantages of doing so are (IMO) clear. Perhaps a more interesting question is why other managed languages don't put a bound on their heaps by default.
The -Xmx and ulimit approaches are qualitatively different. In the former case, the JVM has full knowledge of the limits it is running under and gets a chance to manage its memory usage accordingly. In the latter case, the first thing a typical C application knows about it is when a malloc call fails. The typical response is to exit with an error code (if the program checks the malloc result), or die with a segmentation fault. OK, a C application could in theory keep track of how much memory it has used, and try to respond to an impending memory crisis. But it would be hard work.
The other thing that is different about Java and C/C++ applications is that the former tend to be both more complicated and longer running. In practice, this means that Java applications are more likely to suffer from slow leaks. In the C/C++ case, the fact that memory management is harder means that developers don't attempt to build single applications of that complexity. Rather, they are more likely to build (say) a complex service by having a listener process fork of child processes to do stuff ... and then exit. This naturally mitigates the effect of memory leaks in the child process.
The idea of a JVM responding "adaptively" to requests from the OS to give memory back is interesting. But there is a BIG problem. In order to give a segment of memory back, the JVM first has to clear out any reachable objects in the segment. Typically that means running the garbage collector. But running the garbage collector is the last thing you want to do if the system is in a memory crisis ... because it is pretty much guaranteed to generate a burst of virtual memory paging.

Hm, I'll try summarizing the answers so far.
There is no technical reason why the JVM needs to have a hard limit for its heap size. It could have been implemented without one, and in fact many other dynamic languages do not have this.
Therefore, giving the JVM a heap size limit was simply a design decision by the implementors. Second-guessing why this was done is a bit difficult, and there may not be a single reason. The most likely reason is that it helps protect a system from a Java program with a memory leak, which might otherwise exhaust all RAM and cause other apps to crash or the system to thrash.
Sun could have omitted the feature and simply told people to use the OS-native resource limiting mechanisms, but they probably wanted to always have a limit, so they implemented it themselves.
At any rate, the JVM needs to be aware of any such limit (to adapt its GC strategy), so using an OS-native mechanism would not have saved much programming effort.
Also, there is one reason why such a built-in limit is more important for the JVM than for a "normal" program without GC (such as a C/C++ program):
Unlike a program with manual memory management, a program using GC does not really have a well-defined memory requirement, even with fixed input data. It only has a minimum requirement, i.e. the sum of the sizes of all objects that are actually live (reachable) at a given point in time. However, in practice a program will need additional memory to hold dead, but not yet GCed objects, because the GC cannot collect every object right away, as that would cause too much GC overhead. So GC only kicks in from time to time, and therefore some "breathing room" is required on the heap, where dead objects can await the GC.
This means that the memory required for a program using GC is really a compromise between saving memory and having good througput (by letting the GC run less often). So in some cases it may make sense to set the heap limit lower than what the JVM would use if it could, so save RAM at the expense of performance. To do this, there needs to be a way to set a heap limit.

I think part of it has to do with the implementation of the Garbage Collector (GC). The GC is typically lazy, meaning it will only start really trying to reclaim memory internally when the heap is at its maximum size. If you didn't set an upper limit, the runtime would happily continue to inflate until it used every available bit of memory on your system.
That's because from the application's perspective, it's more performant to take more resources than exert effort to use the resources you already have to full utilization. This tends to make sense for a lot of (if not most) uses of Java, which is a server setting where the application is literally the only thing that matters on the server. It tends to be slightly less ideal when you're trying to implement a client in Java, which will run amongst dozens of other applications at the same time.
Remember that with native programs, the programmer typically requests but also explicitly cleans up resources. That isn't typically true with environments who do automatic memory management.

It is due to the design of the JVM. Other JVM's (like the one from Microsoft and some IBM ones) can use all the memory available in the system if needed, without an arbitrary limit.
I believe it allows for GC-optimizations.

I think that the upper limit for memory is is linked to the fact that JVM is a VM.
As any physical machine has a given (fixed) ammount of RAM so the VM has one.
The maximal size makes the JVM easier to manage by the operating system and ensures some performance gains(less swapping).
Sun' JVM also works in quite limited hardware architecture(embedded ARM systems) and there the management of resources is crucial.

One answer that no-one above gave is that the JVM uses both heap and non-heap memory pools. Putting an upper limit on the heap defines not only how much memory is available for the heap memory pools, but it also defines how much memory is available for NON-HEAP usages. I suppose that the JVM could just allocate non-heap at the top of virtual memory and heap at the bottom of virtual memory and grow both toward each other.
Non-heap memory includes the DLLs or SOs that comprise the JVM and any native code being used as well as compiled Java code, thread stacks, native objects, PermGen (meta-data about compiled classes), among other uses. I've seen Java programs crash because so much memory was given to the heap that the application ran out of non-heap memory. This is where I learned that it can be important to reserve memory for non-heap usages by not setting the heap to be too large.
This makes a much bigger difference in a 32-bit world where an application often has only 2GB of virtual address space than it does in a 64-bit world, of course.

Would it not make more sense to separate the upper bound that triggers GC and the maximum that can be allocated ? Once the memory allocated hits the upper-bound, GC can kick in and release some memory to the free pool.
sort of like how I clean my desk that I share with my co-worker. I have a large desk, and my threshold of how much junk I can tolerate on the table is much less than the size of my desk. I don't need to have fill up every available inch before I garbage collect.
I could also return some of the desk space that I using to my co-worker, who is sharing my desk....I understand jvms don't return memory back to the system after they've allocated it to themselves, but it does not have to be that way no ?

It does allocate memory as needed, up to -Xmx ;)
One reason I can think of is that once the JVM allocates an amount of memory for its heap, it will never let it go. So if your heap has no upper bound, the JVM may just grab all the free memory on the system and then never let it go.
The upper bound also tells the JVM when it needs to do a full garbage collection. If your app is still under the upper bound, the JVM will postpone garbage collection and let the memory footprint of your application grow.
Native programs can die due to out of memory errors as well since native applications also have a memory limit: the memory available on the system - the memory already held by other applications.
The JVM also needs a contiguous block of system memory in order for garbage collection to be performed efficiently.
EDIT
Contiguous memory claim or here
The JVM will apparently let some memory go, but it is rare with the default configuration.

Java maximum memory argument does not appear to work [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
JVM memory usage out of control
(2 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I have a Jar file that is ran in a server environment on demand, and I would like to limit the amount of memory that it uses so that multiple simultaneous instances can run comfortably. However, after setting the -Xmx512M parameter, it appears that Java is still using more memory than that. I am using the following command:
java -Xmx512M -jar Reporter.jar /tmp/REPmKLs8K
However I can see that the process is using more than this:
Resource: Virtual Memory Size
Exceeded: 1657 > 400 (MB)
Executable: /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-openjdk-1.7.0.91.x86_64/jre/bin/java
Command: java -Xmx512M -jar Reporter.jar /tmp/REPmKLs8K
I'm not sure why this is, and it could potentially be an issue with the memory reporting software (ConfigServer Firewall). Has anyone experienced anything similar?

-Xmx is the maximum heap size, not the process size.
See: What does Java option -Xmx stand for?

-Xmx is used in order to specify the max heap allocation, but java needs more memory for JVM, pergem space (Java 7 and below), etc... You can see this post for memory structure
You can use tools like JVisualVM in order to profile the real memory usage in the JVM.

-Xmx doesn't control what you think it controls.
It only controls the JVM heap, not everything goes in the JVM heap, and the heap takes up way more native memory that what you specify for management and bookkeeping.
You can't control what you want to control, -Xmx only controls the Java Heap, it doesn't control consumption of native memory by the JVM, which is consumed completely differently based on implementation. The JVM uses up native memory in an entirely different way and it dependant on each JVM implementation and the OS it is running on.
From the following article Thanks for the Memory ( Understanding How the JVM uses Native Memory on Windows and Linux )
Maintaining the heap and garbage collector use native memory you can't control.
More native memory is required to maintain the state of the
memory-management system maintaining the Java heap. Data structures
must be allocated to track free storage and record progress when
collecting garbage. The exact size and nature of these data structures
varies with implementation, but many are proportional to the size of
the heap.
and the JIT compiler uses native memory just like javac would
Bytecode compilation uses native memory (in the same way that a static
compiler such as gcc requires memory to run), but both the input (the
bytecode) and the output (the executable code) from the JIT must also
be stored in native memory. Java applications that contain many
JIT-compiled methods use more native memory than smaller applications.
and then you have the classloader(s) which use native memory
Java applications are composed of classes that define object structure
and method logic. They also use classes from the Java runtime class
libraries (such as java.lang.String) and may use third-party
libraries. These classes need to be stored in memory for as long as
they are being used. How classes are stored varies by implementation.
I won't even start quoting the section on Threads.
Plain and simple the JVM uses more memory than what is supplied in -Xms and -Xmx and the other command line parameters.
The Classloaders, and applications can have more than one, eat up lots of memory that isn't documented easily. The JIT eats up memory, trading space for time, which is a good trade off most of the time.
Some of the above links may refer to older Java versions; Java 8 handles garbage collection and memory allocation differently, but the general rules above apply.

Native memory usage in Linux seems to be much higher than observed through JVM itself (e.g. through JConsole)

We have a customer that uses WebSphere 7.0 on RedHat Linux Server 5.6 (Tikanga) with IBM JVM 1.6.
When we look at the OS reports for memory usage, we see very high numbers and OS starts to use SWAP memory in some point due to lack in memory.
On the other hand, JConsole graphs show perfectly normal behavior of memory - Heap size increases until GC is invoked when expected and Heap size drops to ~30% in normal cycles. Non heap is as expected and very constant in size.
Does anyone have an idea what this extra native memory usage can be attributed to?

I would check you are looking at resident memory and not virtual memory (the later can be very high)
If you swap, even slightly this can cause the JVM to halt for very long periods of time on a GC. If your application is not locking up for second or minutes, it probably isn't swapping (another program could be)
If your program really is using native memory, this will most like be due to a native library you have imported. If you have a look at /proc/{id}/mmap this may give you a clue, but more likely to will have to check which native libraries you are loading.
Note: if you have lots of threads, the stack space for all these reads can add up. I would try to keep these to a minimum if you can, but I have seen JVMs with many thousands and this can chew up native memory. GUI components can also use native memory but I assume you don't have any of those.

Java RAM increases although Heap stays same? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Limit jvm process memory on ubuntu
In my application I'm uploading documents to a server, which does some analyzing on it.
Today I analyzed my application using jconsole.exe and heap dumps as I tried to find out if I'm having memory issues / a memory leak. I thought I might suffer of one since my application is growing very much on RAM while the application is running.
As I watched the heap / codecache / perm gen etc. memory with jconsole after some runs, I was surprised as I saw the following:
picture link: https://www7.pic-upload.de/13.06.12/murk9qrka8al.png
As you can see at the jconsole on the right, the heap is increasing when I'm doing analyzing-related stuff, but it's also decreasing again to its normal size when the work is over. On the left you can see the "htop" of the sever the application is deployed on. And there it is: The RAM is, although the heap acts normally and it also seems the garbage collector is running correct, incredible high at almost 3,2gb.
This is now really confusing me. I was thinking if my java vm stack could have to do something with this? I did some research and what I found spoke about the vm stack as a little memory with only a few megabytes (or even only kb).
My technical background:
The application is running on glassfish v.3.1.2
The database is running on MySQL
Hibernate is used as ORM framework
Java version is 1.7.0_04
It's implemented using VAADIN
MySQL database and glassfish are the only things running on this server
I'm constructing XML-DOM-style documents using JAXB during the analysis and save them in the database
Uploaded documents are either .txt or .pdf files
OS is linux
Solution?
Do you have any ideas why this happens and what I can do for fixing it? I'm really surprised at the moment, since I thought the memory problems came from a memory leak which causes the heap to explode. But now, the heap isn't the problem. It's the RAM that goes higher and higher while the heap stays on the same level. And I don't know what to do to resolve it.
Thanks for every thought you're sharing with me.
Edit: Maybe I should also state out that this behaviour is currently making me impossible to really let other people use my application. When the RAM is full and the server doesn't respond anymore I'm out.
Edit2: Maybe I should also add that this RAM keeps increasing after every successfull further analyzation.

There are lots more things that use memory in a JVM implementation than the Heap Settings.
The Heap settings via -Xmx only controls the Java Heap, it doesn't control consumption of native memory by the JVM, which is consumed completely differently based on implementation.
From the following article Thanks for the Memory ( Understanding How the JVM uses Native Memory on Windows and Linux )
Maintaining the heap and garbage collector use native memory you can't control.
More native memory is required to maintain the state of the
memory-management system maintaining the Java heap. Data structures
must be allocated to track free storage and record progress when
collecting garbage. The exact size and nature of these data structures
varies with implementation, but many are proportional to the size of
the heap.
and the JIT compiler uses native memory just like javac would
Bytecode compilation uses native memory (in the same way that a static
compiler such as gcc requires memory to run), but both the input (the
bytecode) and the output (the executable code) from the JIT must also
be stored in native memory. Java applications that contain many
JIT-compiled methods use more native memory than smaller applications.
and then you have the classloader(s) which use native memory
Java applications are composed of classes that define object structure
and method logic. They also use classes from the Java runtime class
libraries (such as java.lang.String) and may use third-party
libraries. These classes need to be stored in memory for as long as
they are being used. How classes are stored varies by implementation.
I won't even start quoting the section on Threads, I think you get the idea that
the Java Heap isn't the only thing that consumes memory in a JVM implementation, not everything
goes in the JVM heap, and the heap takes up way more native memory that what you specify for
management and book keeping.
Native Code
App Servers many times have native code that runs outside the JVM but still shows up to the OS as memory associated with the process that controls the app server.

Java memory usages

I cannot understand the Java memory usage. I have an application which is executed with maximum memory size set to 256M. Yet, at some point in time I can see that according to the task manager it takes up to 700MB!
Needless to say, all the rest of the applications are a bit unresponsive when this happens as they are probably swapped out.
It's JDK 1.6 on WinXP. Any ideas ?

The memory configured is available to the application. It won't include
the JVM size
the jars/libs loaded in
native libraries and related allocated memory
which will result in a much bigger image. Note that due to how the OS and the JVM work that 700Mb may be shared between multiple JVMs (due to shared binary images, shared libraries etc.)

The amount you specify with -Xmx is only for the user accessible heap - the space in which you create runtime objects dynamically.
The Java process will usea lot more space for its own needs, including the JVM, the program and other libraries, constants pool, etc.
In addition, because of the way the garbage collection system works, there may be more memory allocated than what is currently in the heap - it just hasn't been reclaimed yet.
All that being said, setting your program to a maximal heap of 256MB is really lowballing it on a modern system. For heavy programs you can usually request at least 1GB of heap.
As you mentioned, one possible cause of slowness is that some of the memory allocated to Java gets swapped off to disk. In that case, the program would indeed start churning the disk, so don't go overboard if you have little physical memory available. On Linux, you can get page miss stats for a process, I am sure there's a similar way on windows.

The -Xmx option only limits the java heap size. In addition to the heap, java will allocate memory for other things, including a stack for each thread (2kB by default, set by -Xss), the PermGenSpace, etc.
So, depending on how many threads you launch, the number of classes your application loads, and some other factors, you may use a lot more memory than expected.
Also, as pointed out, the Windows task manager may take the virtual memory into account.

You mean the heap right? As far as i know there are two things to take care. The Xms option which sets an initial java heap size and the Xmx option which sets the maximum java heap space. If the heap memory is overreaching the Xmx value there should be an OutOfMemoryException.

What about the virtual pages it's taking up. I think Windows shows you the full set of everything aggregated.