1 Reply Latest reply on Apr 10, 2012 4:26 PM by Peter Johnson

    JBOSS 4 and Hyper-V?

    Sebastian None Newbie

      Hello, I have a consultation on JBOSS in a Hyper-V Windows 2008 R2. The physical server has 2 quad coreprocessors and 36GB of RAM. The Hyper-V is set to 4 processors and 16GB ofRAM. My question is whether this version of JBOSS is right to use multiple cores and hyper-v or if you should use another version of JBOSS? Which? Is there anydocumentation you can read about this topic? You are missing some update to version

      Today (java.exe) on the server uses only 22% of the processor and the systembecomes very slow. Restart the JBoss and returns to work well.

      Thank you.


      More Data:



      Version: 4.2.0.GA (build: SVNTag=JBoss_4_2_0_GA date=200705111441)

      Version Name: Trinity

      Built on: May 11 2007

      JVM - Hardware


      #CPU: 4

      OS: Windows Server 2008 R2 6.1 (amd64)

      JVM Environment

      Free Memory: 1000 MB

      Max Memory: 3 GB

      Total Memory: 2385 MB

      #Threads: 91

      JVM Version: 20.4-b02 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)

      JVM Name: Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM

        • 1. Re: JBOSS 4 and Hyper-V?
          Peter Johnson Master

          I haven't used Hyper-V, but have run various versions (from 4.2.x through 7.x) of JBoss AS in VirtualBox and VMWare, in both Windows and Linux VMs, both 32-bit and 64-bit, and haven't run into any issues (but then, I haven't done any extensive performance testing in those environments either). You will need to do some performance testing and profiling to figure out what the slowdown is. And you might have to do that for both the VM and for the server on which it is running, so you might need some Hyper-V performance tuning expertise.


          Looks like you are running JVM 1.6.0_29 (that's what I'm runnign and it also yields build number 20.4-b02), which is reasonably up to date. Some of people i work with have noticed issues with this and reverted to 1.6.0_26, but I don't think those were performance-related issues (I think they were network-related).