I know there is no "right" heap size, but which heap size do you use in your applications (application type, jdk, os)?
The JVM Options -Xms (initial/minimum) and -Xmx (maximum) allow for controlling the heap size. What settings make sense under which circumstances? When are the defaults appropriate?
You have to try your application and see how it performs. for example, I used to always run IDEA out of the box until I've got this new job where I work on this huge monolithic project. IDEA was running very slow and regularly throwing out of memory errors when compiling the full project.
first thing I did is to ramp up the heap to 1 gig. this got rid of the out of memory issues but it was still slow. I also noticed IDEA was regularly freezing for 10 seconds or so after which the used memory was cut in half only to ramp up again and , and that triggered the garbage collection idea. I now use it with -Xms512m, -Xmx768m but, I also added -Xincgc, to activate incremental garbage collection
As a result, I've got my old IDEA back: it runs smooth, doesn't freeze anymore and never uses more than 600m of heap.
For your application you have to use a similar approach. try to determine the typical memory usage and tune your heap for the application to run well in those conditions. But also let advanced users tune the setting, to address out of the ordinary data loads.
It depends on the application type. A desktop application is much different than a web application. An application server is much different than a standalone application.
It also depends on the JVM that you are using. JDK5 and later 6 include enhancements that help understand how to tune your application.
Heap size is important, but its also important to know how it plays with the garbage collector.
JDK1.4 Garbage Collector Tuning
JDK5 Garbage Collector Tuning
JDK6 Garbage Collector Tuning
Actually I always considered it very strange that Java limits the heap size. A native application can usually use as much heap as it wants, until it runs out of virtual address space. The only reason to limit the heap in Java seems the garbage collector, which has a certain kind of "laziness" and may not garbage collect objects, unless there is a necessity to do so. That means if you choose the heap too big, your app constantly uses more memory than is really necessary.
However, Sun has improved the GC a lot over the years and to emulate the behavior of a native C app, I would set the initial heap size to 32 MB (for small programs) or 64 MB (for bigger ones) and the maximum to something between 1-2 GB. If your app really needs over a 1 GB of memory, it is most likely broken (unless you deal with data objects that large), but I see no reason why your app should be killed, just because it goes over a certain heap size.
Of course, this is referring to normal PCs. If you create Java code for mobile phones or other limited devices, you should probably adopt the initial and maximum heap size to the limitations of that device.
Typically i try not to use heaps which are larger than 1GB.
It will cost you on major garbage collections.
Sometime it is better to split your application to a few JVM on the same machine and not you large heap sizes.
Major collection with a large heap size can take >10 mintues (on unoptimized GC applications).
This is entirely dependent on your application and any hardware limitations you may have. There is no one size fits all.
jmap can be used to have a look at what heap you are actually using and is a good starting point for right-sizing the heap.
You need to spend quite some time in JConsole or visualvm to get a clear picture on what the plateau memory usage is. Wait until everything is stable and you see the characteristic sawtooth curve of heap memory usage. The peaks should be your 70-80% heap, depending on what garbage collector you use.
Most garbage collectors trigger full GCs when heap usage reaches a certain percentage. This percentage is from 60% to 80% of max heap, depending on what strategy is involved.
1.3Gb for a heavy GUI application.
Unfortunately on Linux the JVM seems to pre-request 1.3G of virtual memory in that situation, which looks bad even if it's not needed (and causes a lot of confused grumbling from users)
On my most memory intensive app:
-Xms250M -Xmx1500M -XX:+UnlockExperimentalVMOptions -XX:+UseG1GC
Related
I'm 100% aware of the pitfalls of the JVM and advances/strides that have been done in the JVM world for it to understand the ergonomics/resources of a container. Also, yes I know that Java by default tries to allocate 1/4 the RAM available in the environment it's running...
So I had some thoughts and questions. I have made a 50/50 rule. If my application needs 1GB of Xmx, then I create 2GB container which gives another 1GB of RAM for the JVM overhead and any container/swap stuff (though not sure how swap really works within a container).
So I was thinking if my application needs 6GB of Xmx do I really need to create 12GB container or can I get away with 7GB or 8GB container? How much headroom do we need to give inside the container when it comes to RAM?
If your container is dedicated to the JVM, then you don't need to use a percentage.
You need to know how much java heap you need -- in this case 6GB -- and how much everything else needs, which it looks like you've already proven is less than 2GB.
Then just add them up. An 8GB container should be fine in this case. Note that stack and heap memory are separate, though, so if you will need a large number of threads running simultaneously, don't forget to add 1MB of stack space for each one (or whatever you set with -Xss)
ALSO, I really recommend setting the minimum and maximum Java heap size to the SAME value -- 6GB in this case. Then you're guaranteed that there will no surprises when Java tries to grow the heap.
This is a very complicated question. The heap is only a portion of Java process; which has a lot of native resources also, not tracked with -Xms and -Xmx. Here is a very nice summary about what these might be.
Then, there is the garbage collector algorithm that you use: the more freedom (extra-space) it has - the better. This has to do with so-called GC barriers. In very simple words, when GC is executed - all the heap manipulations will be "intercepted" and tracked separately. If the allocation rate is high, the space needed to track these changes (while an active GC happens) tends to grow. The more space you have - the better the GC will perform.
Then, it matters what java version you are using (because -Xmx and -Xms might mean different things under different java versions with respect to containers), for example take a look here.
So there is no easy answer here. If you can afford 12GB of memory - do so. Memory is a lot cheaper (usually) than debugging any of the problems above.
I have an enterprise level Java application that serves a few thousand users per day. This is a JAXB web service on weblogic 10.3.6 (Java 1.6 JVM), using Hibernate to hit an Oracle database. It also calls other web services.
We have it tuned the following GC settings on our production system:
-server -Xms2048m -Xmx2048m -XX:PermSize=512m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m
What is the effect of this GC sizing? The hardware has more than enough capacity to handle it.
I know that this sets the heap size and perm gen at a stable level. But what's the impact of that when you eventually have to do garbage collection?
To me it seems that it would make GC happen less frequently, but take longer when it does happen. Does that sound correct?
I would say please monitor the GC before deciding on the sizing as you never know how the application will behave under load. Have a look at this link and this it has some good references about GC and tools to calculate the same.
it would make GC happen less frequently, but take longer when it does happen
It might, it depends on your use case. You might even find that the GC is shorter in rare case.
A 2 GB heap isn't that much and I would use up to 26 GB without worrying about heap size. Above this size memory accesses are a little slower or use more memory.
Setting -Xmx & -Xms and PermSize & MaxPermSize to equal sizes will stop the JVM from resizing the heaps based on your requirement. These resizes are expensive as they trigger a Full GC.
-server will allow the JVM to make use of Server Compiler which will do more aggressive optimizations before compiling your code to native assembly instructions. Although now-a-days any machine with 2 or more cores and 2GB+ of memory will have server compiler on by default.
Increasing the memory doesn't always fix a problem. Sometimes adding more memory will be an overhead.
If you need details regarding GC, you can try this link
The very reason to tune something is to improve your application's performance and there by achieve your throughput and latency goals.
We're load testing a Java 1.6 application in our DEV environment. The JVM heap allocation is 2Gb, -Xms2048m -Xmx2048m. Under load testing, the app runs smooth, never uses more than 1.25Gb of heap, and garbage collection is totally normal.
In our UAT environment, we run the load test with the same parameters, the only difference is the JVM, it's allocated 4Gb, -Xms4096m -Xmx4096m, otherwise, the hardware is exactly the same with DEV. But during load testing, the performance is horrendous, the app eats up nearly the entire heap, and garbage collection runs rampant.
We've run these tests over and over again, eliminated all possible symptoms that may influence performance, but the results are the same. Under what circumstances can this be the case?
There is something different about your application in the Production and UAT environments.
Judging from the symptoms, it is (IMO) unlikely to be a hardware, operating system performance tuning or a difference in the JVM versions. It goes without saying that this is unlikely to be due to the application having more memory.
(It is not inconceivable that your application might do something strange ... like sizing some data structures based on the maximum heap size and get the calculations wrong. But I think you'd be aware of that possibility, so lets ignore it for now.)
It is probably related to a difference in the OS environment; e.g. a different version of the OS or some application, differences in the networking, differences in locales, etcetera. But the bottom line is that it is 99% certain that there is a memory leak in your application when run on the UAT, and that memory leak is what is chewing up heap memory and overloading the GC.
My advice would be to treat this as a storage leak problem, and use the standard tools / techniques to track down the cause of the problem. In the process, you will most likely be able to figure out why this only occurs on your UAT.
The culprit could be garbage collection, normal "stop-the-world"-type collection caused us some performance problems; the server-software was running very slow, yet the load of the server was also low. Eventually we found out that there was a single "stop-the-world" -garbage collector thread holding up the entire software being run all the time under certain scenarios (operations producing loads of garbage).
Moving to concurrent garbage collection alleviated the problem with start up parameters -XX:+UseParallelOldGC -XX:ParallelGCThreads=8. We were using "only" 2gb heaps in tests and production, but it is also worthy of noting that the amount of time the GC takes goes up with larger heap (even if your software never actually uses all of it).
You might want to read more about different garbage collector -options and tuning from here: Java SE 6 HotSpot[tm] Virtual Machine Garbage Collection Tuning.
Also, answers in this question could provide some help: Java very large heap sizes.
It will be worth while to analyze the heap dumps on both these machines and understand what is consuming the heap differently on these 2 environments. Histograms will help.
I have heard several people claiming that you can not scale the JVM heap size up. I've heard claims of the practical limit being 4 gigabytes (I heard an IBM consultant say that), 10 gigabytes, 32 gigabytes, and so on... I simply can not believe any of those numbers and have been wondering about the issue now for a while.
So, I have three part question I would hope someone with experience could answer:
Given the following case how would you tune the heap and GC settings?
Would there be noticeable hickups (pauses of JVM etc) that would be noticed by the end users?
Should this really still work? I think it should.
The case:
64 bit platform
64 cores
64 gigabytes of memory
The application server is client facing (ie. Jboss/tomcat web application server) - complete pauses of JVM would probably be noticed by end users
Sun JVM, probably 1.5
To prove I am not asking you guys to do my homework this is what I came up with:
-XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:+AggressiveOpts -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions -XX:-EliminateZeroing -Xmn768m -Xmx55000m
CMS should reduce the amount of pauses, although it comes with overhead. The other settings for CMS seem to default automatically to the number of CPUs so they seem sane to me. The rest that I added are extras that might do good or bad generally for performance, and they should probably be tested.
Definitely.
I think it's going to be difficult for anybody to give you anything more than general advice, without having further knowledge of your application.
What I would suggest is that you use VisualGC (or the VisualGC plugin for VisualVM) to actually look at what the garbage collection is doing when your app is running. Once you have a greater understanding of how the GC is working alongside your application, it'll be far easier to tune it.
#1. Given the following case how would you tune the heap and GC settings?
First, having 64 gigabytes of memory doesn't imply that you have to use them all for one JVM. Actually, it rather means you can run many of them. Then, it is impossible to answer your question without any access to your machine and application to measure and analyse things (knowing what your application is doing isn't enough). And no, I'm not asking to get access to your environment :)
#2. Would there be noticeable hickups (pauses of JVM etc) that would be noticed by the end users?
The goal of tuning is to find a good compromise between frequency and duration of (major) GCs. With a ~55g heap, GC won't be frequent but will take noticeable time, for sure (the bigger the heap, the longer the major GC). Using a Parallel or Concurrent garbage collector will help on multiprocessor systems but won't entirely solve this issue. Why do you need ~55g (this is mega ultra huge for a webapp IMO), that's my question. I'd rather run many clustered JVMs to handle load if required (at some point, the database will become the bottleneck anyway with a data oriented application).
#3. Should this really still work? I think it should.
Hmm... not sure I get the question. What is "this"? Instantiating a JVM with a big heap? Yes, it should. Is it equivalent to running several JVMs? No, certainly not.
PS: 4G is the maximum theoretical heap limit for the 32-bit JVM running on a 64-bit operating system (see Why can't I get a larger heap with the 32-bit JVM?)
PPS: On 64-bit VMs, you have 64 bits of addressability to work with resulting in a maximum Java heap size limited only by the amount of physical memory and swap space your system provides. (see How large a heap can I create using a 64-bit VM?)
Obviously heap size is not unlimited and the larger is the heap size, the more your JVM will eventually spend on GC. Though I think it is possible to set heap size quite high on 64-bit JVM, I still think it's not really practical. The advice here is better to have several JVMs running with the same parameters i.e. cluster of JBoss/Tomcat nodes running on the same physical machine and you will get better throughput.
EDIT: Also your GC behavior depends on the taxonomy of your heap. If you have a lot of short-living objects and each request to the server creates a lot of those, then your GC will collect a lot of garbage very often and thus on large heap size this will result in longer pauses. If you have very many long-living objects (e.g. caching most of your data in memory) and the amount of short-living objects is not that big, then having bigger heap size is OK.
As Chris Rice already wrote, I wouldn't expect any obvious problems with the GC for heap sizes up to 32-64GB, although there may of course be some point of your application logic, which can cause problems.
Not directly related to GC, but I would still recommend you to perform a realistic load test on your production system. I used to work on a project, where we had a similar setup (relatively large, clustered JBoss/Tomcat setup to serve a public web application) and without exaggeration, JBoss is not behaving very well under high load or with a high number of concurrent calls if you are using EJBs. JBoss is spending a lot of time in synchronized blocks when accessing and managing the EJB instance pools and if you opt for a cluster, it will even wait for intra-cluster network communication within these synchronized blocks. Be especially aware of poorly performing state replication, if you are using SFSBs.
Only to add some more switches I would use by default: -Xms55g can help to reduce the rampup time because it frees Java from the need to check if it can fall back to the initial size and allows also better internal initial sizing of memory areas.
Additionally we made good experiences with NewSize to give you a large young size to get rid of short term garbage: -XX:NewSize=1g Additionally most webapps create a lot of short time garbage that will never survive the request processing. You can even make that bigger. With Xms55g, the VM reserves a large chunk already. Maybe downsizing can help.
-Xincgc helps to clean the young generation incrementally and return the cpu often to the user threads.
-XX:CMSInitiatingOccupancyFraction=70 If you really fill all that memory, try to start CMS garbage collection earlier.
-XX:+CMSIncrementalMode puts the CMS into incremental mode to return the cpu to the user threads more often.
Attach to the process with jstat -gc -h 10 <pid> 1s and watch the GC working.
Will you really fill up the memory? I assume that 64cpus for request processing might even be able to work with less memory. What do you store in there?
Depending on your GC pause analysis, you may wish to implement Incremental mode whereby the long pause may be broken out over a period of time.
I have found memory architecture plays a part in large memory sizes. Applications in general don't perform as well if they use more than one memory bank. The JVM appears to suffer as well, esp the GC which has to sweep the whole memory.
If you have an application which doesn't fit into one memory bank, your application has to pull in memory which is not local to a processor and use memory local to another processor.
On linux you can run numactl --hardware to see the layout of processors and memory banks.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Does anyone have experience with using very large heaps, 12 GB or higher in Java?
Does the GC make the program unusable?
What GC params do you use?
Which JVM, Sun or BEA would be better suited for this?
Which platform, Linux or Windows, performs better under such conditions?
In the case of Windows is there any performance difference to be had between 64 bit Vista and XP under such high memory loads?
If your application is not interactive, and GC pauses are not an issue for you, there shouldn't be any problem for 64-bit Java to handle very large heaps, even in hundreds of GBs. We also haven't noticed any stability issues on either Windows or Linux.
However, when you need to keep GC pauses low, things get really nasty:
Forget the default throughput, stop-the-world GC. It will pause you application for several tens of seconds for moderate heaps (< ~30 GB) and several minutes for large ones (> ~30 GB). And buying faster DIMMs won't help.
The best bet is probably the CMS collector, enabled by -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC. The CMS garbage collector stops the application only for the initial marking phase and remarking phases. For very small heaps like < 4 GB this is usually not a problem, but for an application that creates a lot of garbage and a large heap, the remarking phase can take quite a long time - usually much less then full stop-the-world, but still can be a problem for very large heaps.
When the CMS garbage collector is not fast enough to finish operation before the tenured generation fills up, it falls back to standard stop-the-world GC. Expect ~30 or more second long pauses for heaps of size 16 GB. You can try to avoid this keeping the long-lived garbage production rate of you application as low as possible. Note that the higher the number of the cores running your application is, the bigger is getting this problem, because the CMS utilizes only one core. Obviously, beware there is no guarantee the CMS does not fall back to the STW collector. And when it does, it usually happens at the peak loads, and your application is dead for several seconds. You would probably not want to sign an SLA for such a configuration.
Well, there is that new G1 thing. It is theoretically designed to avoid the problems with CMS, but we have tried it and observed that:
Its throughput is worse than that of CMS.
It theoretically should avoid collecting the popular blocks of memory first, however it soon reaches a state where almost all blocks are "popular", and the assumptions it is based on simply stop working.
Finally, the stop-the-world fallback still exists for G1; ask Oracle, when that code is supposed to be run. If they say "never", ask them, why the code is there. So IMHO G1 really doesn't make the huge heap problem of Java go away, it only makes it (arguably) a little smaller.
If you have bucks for a big server with big memory, you have probably also bucks for a good, commercial hardware accelerated, pauseless GC technology, like the one offered by Azul. We have one of their servers with 384 GB RAM and it really works fine - no pauses, 0-lines of stop-the-world code in the GC.
Write the damn part of your application that requires lots of memory in C++, like LinkedIn did with social graph processing. You still won't avoid all the problems by doing this (e.g. heap fragmentation), but it would be definitely easier to keep the pauses low.
I am CEO of Azul Systems so I am obviously biased in my opinion on this topic! :) That being said...
Azul's CTO, Gil Tene, has a nice overview of the problems associated with Garbage Collection and a review of various solutions in his Understanding Java Garbage Collection and What You Can Do about It presentation, and there's additional detail in this article: http://www.infoq.com/articles/azul_gc_in_detail.
Azul's C4 Garbage Collector in our Zing JVM is both parallel and concurrent, and uses the same GC mechanism for both the new and old generations, working concurrently and compacting in both cases. Most importantly, C4 has no stop-the-world fall back. All compaction is performed concurrently with the running application. We have customers running very large (hundreds of GBytes) with worse case GC pause times of <10 msec, and depending on the application often times less than 1-2 msec.
The problem with CMS and G1 is that at some point Java heap memory must be compacted, and both of those garbage collectors stop-the-world/STW (i.e. pause the application) to perform compaction. So while CMS and G1 can push out STW pauses, they don't eliminate them. Azul's C4, however, does completely eliminate STW pauses and that's why Zing has such low GC pauses even for gigantic heap sizes.
We have an application that we allocate 12-16 Gb for but it really only reaches 8-10 during normal operation. We use the Sun JVM (tried IBMs and it was a bit of a disaster but that just might have been ignorance on our part...I have friends that swear by it--that work at IBM). As long as you give your app breathing room, the JVM can handle large heap sizes with not too much GC. Plenty of 'extra' memory is key.
Linux is almost always more stable than Windows and when it is not stable it is a hell of a lot easier to figure out why. Solaris is rock solid as well and you get DTrace too :)
With these kind of loads, why on earth would you be using Vista or XP? You are just asking for trouble.
We don't do anything fancy with the GC params. We do set the minimum allocation to be equal to the maximum so it is not constantly trying to resize but that is it.
I have used over 60 GB heap sizes on two different applications under Linux and Solaris respectively using 64-bit versions (obviously) of the Sun 1.6 JVM.
I never encountered garbage collection problems with the Linux-based application except when pushing up near the heap size limit. To avoid the thrashing problems inherent to that scenario (too much time spent doing garbage collection), I simply optimized memory usage throughout the program so that peak usage was about 5-10% below a 64 GB heap size limit.
With a different application running under Solaris, however, I encountered significant garbage-collection problems which made it necessary to do a lot of tweaking. This consisted primarily of three steps:
Enabling/forcing use of the parallel garbage collector via the -XX:+UseParallelGC -XX:+UseParallelOldGC JVM options, as well as controlling the number of GC threads used via the -XX:ParallelGCThreads option. See "Java SE 6 HotSpot Virtual Machine Garbage Collection Tuning" for more details.
Extensive and seemingly ridiculous setting of local variables to "null" after they are no longer needed. Most of these were variables that should have been eligible for garbage collection after going out of scope, and they were not memory leak situations since the references were not copied. However, this "hand-holding" strategy to aid garbage collection was inexplicably necessary for some reason for this application under the Solaris platform in question.
Selective use of the System.gc() method call in key code sections after extensive periods of temporary object allocation. I'm aware of the standard caveats against using these calls, and the argument that they should normally be unnecessary, but I found them to be critical in taming garbage collection when running this memory-intensive application.
The three above steps made it feasible to keep this application contained and running productively at around 60 GB heap usage instead of growing out of control up into the 128 GB heap size limit that was in place. The parallel garbage collector in particular was very helpful since major garbage-collection cycles are expensive when there are a lot of objects, i.e., the time required for major garbage collection is a function of the number of objects in the heap.
I cannot comment on other platform-specific issues at this scale, nor have I used non-Sun (Oracle) JVMs.
12Gb should be no problem with a decent JVM implementation such as Sun's Hotspot.
I would advice you to use the Concurrent Mark and Sweep colllector ( -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC) when using a SUN VM.Otherwies you may face long "stop the world" phases, were all threads are stopped during a GC.
The OS should not make a big difference for the GC performance.
You will need of course a 64 bit OS and a machine with enough physical RAM.
I recommend also considering taking a heap dump and see where memory usage can be improved in your app and analyzing the dump in something such as Eclipse's MAT . There are a few articles on the MAT page on getting started in looking for memory leaks. You can use jmap to obtain the dump with something such as ...
jmap -heap:format=b pid
As mentioned above, if you have a non-interactive program, the default (compacting) garbage collector (GC) should work well. If you have an interactive program, and you (1) don't allocate memory faster than the GC can keep up, and (2) don't create temporary objects (or collections of objects) that are too big (relative to the total maximum JVM memory) for the GC to work around, then CMS is for you.
You run into trouble if you have an interactive program where the GC doesn't have enough breathing room. That's true regardless of how much memory you have, but the more memory you have, the worse it gets. That's because when you get too low on memory, CMS will run out of memory, whereas the compacting GCs (including G1) will pause everything until all the memory has been checked for garbage. This stop-the-world pause gets bigger the more memory you have. Trust me, you don't want your servlets to pause for over a minute. I wrote a detailed StackOverflow answer about these pauses in G1.
Since then, my company has switched to Azul Zing. It still can't handle the case where your app really needs more memory than you've got, but up until that very moment it runs like a dream.
But, of course, Zing isn't free and its special sauce is patented. If you have far more time than money, try rewriting your app to use a cluster of JVMs.
On the horizon, Oracle is working on a high-performance GC for multi-gigabyte heaps. However, as of today that's not an option.
If you switch to 64-bit you will use more memory. Pointers become 8 bytes instead of 4. If you are creating lots of objects this can be noticeable seeing as every object is a reference (pointer).
I have recently allocated 15GB of memory in Java using the Sun 1.6 JVM with no problems. Though it is all only allocated once. Not much more memory is allocated or released after the initial amount. This was on a Linux but I imagine the Sun JVM will work just as well on 64-bit Windows.
You should try running visualgc against your app. It´s a heap visualization tool that´s part of the jvmstat download at http://java.sun.com/performance/jvmstat/
It is a lot easier than reading GC logs.
It quickly helps you understand how the parts (generations) of the heap are working. While your total heap may be 10GB, the various parts of the heap will be much smaller. GCs in the Eden portion of the heap are relatively cheap, while full GCs in the old generation are expensive. Sizing your heap so that that the Eden is large and the old generation is hardly ever touched is a good strategy. This may result in a very large overall heap, but what the heck, if the JVM never touches the page, it´s just a virtual page, and doesn´t have to take up RAM.
A couple of years ago, I compared JRockit and the Sun JVM for a 12G heap. JRockit won, and Linux hugepages support made our test run 20% faster. YMMV as our test was very processor/memory intensive and was primarily single-threaded.
here's an article on gc FROM one of Java Champions --
http://kirk.blog-city.com/is_your_concurrent_collector_failing_you.htm
Kirk, the author writes
"Send me your GC logs
I'm currently interested in studying Sun JVM produced GC logs. Since these logs contain no business relevent information it should be ease concerns about protecting proriatary information. All I ask that with the log you mention the OS, complete version information for the JRE, and any heap/gc related command line switches that you have set. I'd also like to know if you are running Grails/Groovey, JRuby, Scala or something other than or along side Java. The best setting is -Xloggc:. Please be aware that this log does not roll over when it reaches your OS size limit. If I find anything interesting I'll be happy to give you a very quick synopsis in return. "
An article from Sun on Java 6 can help you: https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/javase/troubleshooting-javase.html
The max memory that XP can address is 4 gig(here). So you may not want to use XP for that(use a 64 bit os).
sun has had an itanium 64-bit jvm for a while although itanium is not a popular destination. The solaris and linux 64-bit JVMs should be what you should be after.
Some questions
1) is your application stable ?
2) have you already tested the app in a 32 bit JVM ?
3) is it OK to run multiple JVMs on the same box ?
I would expect the 64-bit OS from windows to get stable in about a year or so but until then, solaris/linux might be better bet.