Java: What is the limit to the number of threads you can create?

Overview

I have seen a number of tests where a JVM has 10K threads. However, what happens if you go beyond this?

My recommendation is to consider having more servers once your total reaches 10K. You can get a decent server for $2K and a powerful one for $10K.

Creating threads gets slower

The time it takes to create a thread increases as you create more thread. For the 32-bit JVM, the stack size appears to limit the number of threads you can create. This may be due to the limited address space. In any case, the memory used by each thread's stack add up. If you have a stack of 128KB and you have 20K threads it will use 2.5 GB of virtual memory.

BitnessStack SizeMax threads
32-bit 64K32,073
32-bit128K20,549
32-bit256K11,216
64-bit 64Kstack too small
64-bit128K32,072
64-bit512K32,072
Note: in the last case, the thread stacks total 16 GB of virtual memory.

Java 6 update 26 32-bit,-XX:ThreadStackSize=64
4,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 0.522 seconds 
8,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 1.281 seconds 
12,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 1.874 seconds 
16,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 2.725 seconds 
20,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 3.333 seconds 
24,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 4.151 seconds 
28,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 5.293 seconds 
32,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 6.636 seconds 
After creating 32,073 threads, java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: unable to create new native thread
 at java.lang.Thread.start0(Native Method)
 at java.lang.Thread.start(Thread.java:640)
 at com.google.code.java.core.threads.MaxThreadsMain.addThread(MaxThreadsMain.java:46)
 at com.google.code.java.core.threads.MaxThreadsMain.main(MaxThreadsMain.java:16)

Java 6 update 26 32-bit,-XX:ThreadStackSize=128
4,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 0.525 seconds 
8,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 1.239 seconds 
12,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 1.902 seconds 
16,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 2.529 seconds 
20,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 3.165 seconds 
After creating 20,549 threads, java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: unable to create new native thread
 at java.lang.Thread.start0(Native Method)
 at java.lang.Thread.start(Thread.java:640)
 at com.google.code.java.core.threads.MaxThreadsMain.addThread(MaxThreadsMain.java:46)
 at com.google.code.java.core.threads.MaxThreadsMain.main(MaxThreadsMain.java:16)

Java 6 update 26 32-bit,-XX:ThreadStackSize=128
4,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 0.526 seconds 
8,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 1.212 seconds 
After creating 11,216 threads, java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: unable to create new native thread
 at java.lang.Thread.start0(Native Method)
 at java.lang.Thread.start(Thread.java:640)
 at com.google.code.java.core.threads.MaxThreadsMain.addThread(MaxThreadsMain.java:46)
 at com.google.code.java.core.threads.MaxThreadsMain.main(MaxThreadsMain.java:16)

Java 6 update 26 64-bit,-XX:ThreadStackSize=128
4,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 0.577 seconds 
8,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 1.292 seconds 
12,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 1.995 seconds 
16,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 2.653 seconds 
20,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 3.456 seconds 
24,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 4.663 seconds 
28,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 5.818 seconds 
32,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 6.792 seconds 
After creating 32,072 threads, java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: unable to create new native thread
 at java.lang.Thread.start0(Native Method)
 at java.lang.Thread.start(Thread.java:640)
 at com.google.code.java.core.threads.MaxThreadsMain.addThread(MaxThreadsMain.java:46)
 at com.google.code.java.core.threads.MaxThreadsMain.main(MaxThreadsMain.java:16)


Java 6 update 26 64-bit,-XX:ThreadStackSize=512
4,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 0.577 seconds 
8,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 1.292 seconds 
12,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 1.995 seconds 
16,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 2.653 seconds 
20,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 3.456 seconds 
24,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 4.663 seconds 
28,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 5.818 seconds 
32,000 threads: Time to create 4,000 threads was 6.792 seconds 
After creating 32,072 threads, java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: unable to create new native thread
 at java.lang.Thread.start0(Native Method)
 at java.lang.Thread.start(Thread.java:640)
 at com.google.code.java.core.threads.MaxThreadsMain.addThread(MaxThreadsMain.java:46)
 at com.google.code.java.core.threads.MaxThreadsMain.main(MaxThreadsMain.java:16)

The Code

MaxThreadsMain.java

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why You Should Tune Code Before Your Garbage Collector

Image
Optimising your memory allocations in Java could make far more difference than your choice of Garbage Collector and may even change which is the best garbage collector. In this post I look at a simple event to response latency benchmark, MarketDataSnapshot to NewOrderSingle at 50K/s for 30 minutes using JLBH to test Chronicle-FIX. The goal is to compare a system which is doing redundant work (in this case logging each message using SLF4J), compared with not logging (Chronicle-FIX records every message internally using Chronicle Queue) and how this changes the choice of Garbage Collector For the p99 (worst 1 in 100) the choice of Garbage Collector makes a different on par with optimising how loggin is done However, for the p99.99 (worst 1 in 10,000) optimsing how the logging is done is orders of magnitude more signifciant than the choice of Garbage Collector Unoptimised Benchmark This takes the optimised benchmark and adds one SLF4J log line of just ...
Read more

Asking multiple AI to optimise the same code

As different AIs are implemented differently, they don't all provide the same answer, nor do they consistently outperform one another. The best approach is to use multiple AI and pick the one you like best. My goal here is not to declare a winner based on one example, but instead to show the variety of answers you can get with different AI. I asked each AI to Suggest how to implement this more optimally private static String formatOffset(int millis) { String sign = millis < 0 ? "-" : "+"; int saveSecs = Math.abs(millis) / 1000; int hours = saveSecs / 3600; int mins = ((saveSecs / 60) % 60); int secs = (saveSecs % 60); if (secs == 0) { if (mins == 0) { return sign + twoDigitString(hours); } return sign + twoDigitString(hours) + twoDigitString(mins); } return sign + twoDigitString(hours) + twoDigitString(mins) + twoDigitString(secs); } private static String twoDigitString(int value) { ...
Read more

Which Doc Format is Best for AI Specifications?

I have a Spec Driven Project with 674 documents incl 181 specs, 429 tasks, and 40 project docs. About 1/3 of these are an acceptance sub-project to show the root project meets fit-for-purpose requirements. I used Fable to convert these to and from AsciiDoc, Markdown, and HTML. From this, I tried to draw some conclusions about which format is better than the others for AI specifications. TL;DR: Markdown for AI working documents, AsciiDoc for curated human-reviewed specs, HTML only as a publishing target. Objective Metrics Corpus Tokens (Approx) Markdown: 594k, AsciiDoc: 598K, HTML: 661k Worst Single-File Ratio AsciiDoc: 1.023x, HTML: 1.26x (due to tables and code blocks) Markup share of file content Markdown 0.9%, AsciiDoc 1.3%, HTML 9.9% - a 10x overhead for HTML Read/write Assessment In terms of readability, both Markdown and AsciiDoc are good. HTML has far more tags, which add noise. One of the most common tags is <code> some code </c...
Read more