How many threads can a Java VM support? Does this vary by vendor? by operating system? other factors?
235
votes
13 Answers
187
votes
This depends on the CPU you're using, on the OS, on what other processes are doing, on what Java release you're using, and other factors. I've seen a Windows server have > 6500 Threads before bringing the machine down. Most of the threads were not doing anything, of course. Once the machine hit around 6500 Threads (in Java), the whole machine started to have problems and become unstable.
My experience shows that Java (recent versions) can happily consume as many Threads as the computer itself can host without problems.
Of course, you have to have enough RAM and you have to have started Java with enough memory to do everything that the Threads are doing and to have a stack for each Thread. Any machine with a modern CPU (most recent couple generations of AMD or Intel) and with 1 - 2 Gig of memory (depending on OS) can easily support a JVM with thousands of Threads.
If you need a more specific answer than this, your best bet is to profile.
93
votes
Um, lots.
There are several parameters here. The specific VM, plus there are usually run-time parameters on the VM as well. That's somewhat driven by the operating system: what support does the underlying OS have for threads and what limitations does it put on them? If the VM actually uses OS-level threads at all, the good old red thread/green thread thing.
What "support" means is another question. If you write a Java program that is just something like
class DieLikeADog {
public static void main(String[] argv){
for(;;){
new Thread(new SomeRunaable).start();
}
}
}
(and don't complain about little syntax details, I'm on my first cup of coffee) then you should certainly expect to get hundreds or thousands of threads running. But creating a Thread is relatively expensive, and scheduler overhead can get intense; it's unclear that you could have those threads do anything useful.
Update
Okay, couldn't resist. Here's my little test program, with a couple embellishments:
public class DieLikeADog {
private static Object s = new Object();
private static int count = 0;
public static void main(String[] argv){
for(;;){
new Thread(new Runnable(){
public void run(){
synchronized(s){
count += 1;
System.err.println("New thread #"+count);
}
for(;;){
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (Exception e){
System.err.println(e);
}
}
}
}).start();
}
}
}
On OS/X 10.5.6 on Intel, and Java 6 5 (see comments), here's what I got
New thread #2547
New thread #2548
New thread #2549
Can't create thread: 5
New thread #2550
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: unable to create new native thread
at java.lang.Thread.start0(Native Method)
at java.lang.Thread.start(Thread.java:592)
at DieLikeADog.main(DieLikeADog.java:6)
56
votes
After reading Charlie Martin's post, I was curious about whether the heap size makes any difference in the number of threads you can create, and I was totally dumbfounded by the result.
Using JDK 1.6.0_11 on Vista Home Premium SP1, I executed Charlie's test application with different heap sizes, between 2 MB and 1024 MB.
For example, to create a 2 MB heap, I'd invoke the JVM with the arguments -Xms2m -Xmx2m.
Here are my results:
2 mb --> 5744 threads
4 mb --> 5743 threads
8 mb --> 5735 threads
12 mb --> 5724 threads
16 mb --> 5712 threads
24 mb --> 5687 threads
32 mb --> 5662 threads
48 mb --> 5610 threads
64 mb --> 5561 threads
96 mb --> 5457 threads
128 mb --> 5357 threads
192 mb --> 5190 threads
256 mb --> 5014 threads
384 mb --> 4606 threads
512 mb --> 4202 threads
768 mb --> 3388 threads
1024 mb --> 2583 threads
So, yeah, the heap size definitely matters. But the relationship between heap size and maximum thread count is INVERSELY proportional.
Which is weird.
40
votes
I know this question is pretty old but just want to share my findings.
My laptop is able to handle program which spawns 25,000 threads and all those threads write some data in MySql database at regular interval of 2 seconds.
I ran this program with 10,000 threads for 30 minutes continuously then also my system was stable and I was able to do other normal operations like browsing, opening, closing other programs, etc.
With 25,000 threads system slows down but it remains responsive.
With 50,000 threads system stopped responding instantly and I had to restart my system manually.
My system details are as follows :
Processor : Intel core 2 duo 2.13 GHz
RAM : 4GB
OS : Windows 7 Home Premium
JDK Version : 1.6
Before running I set jvm argument -Xmx2048m.
Hope it helps.
33
votes
The absolute theoretical maximum is generally a process's user address space divided by the thread stack size (though in reality, if all your memory is reserved for thread stacks, you won't have a working program...).
So under 32-bit Windows, for example, where each process has a user address space of 2GB, giving each thread a 128K stack size, you'd expect an absolute maximum of 16384 threads (=2*1024*1024 / 128). In practice, I find I can start up about 13,000 under XP.
Then, I think you're essentially into whether (a) you can manage juggling that many threads in your code and not do obviously silly things (such as making them all wait on the same object then calling notifyAll()...), and (b) whether the operating system can. In principle, the answer to (b) is "yes" if the answer to (a) is also "yes".
Incidentally, you can specify the stack size in the constructor of the Thread; you don't need to (and probably shouldn't) mess about with VM parameters for this.
2
votes
After playing around with Charlie's DieLikeACode class, it looks like the Java thread stack size is a huge part of how many threads you can create.
-Xss set java thread stack size
For example
java -Xss100k DieLikeADog
But, Java has the Executor interface. I would use that, you will be able to submit thousands of Runnable tasks, and have the Executor process those tasks with a fixed number of threads.
1
votes
I recall hearing a Clojure talk where he got to run one of his apps on some specialized machine at a trade show with thousands of cores (9000?), and it loaded them all. Unfortunately, I can't find the link right now (help?).
Based on that, I think it's safe to say that the hardware and your code are the limiting factors, not the JVM.
1
votes
when i was research this topic in my 2GB Samsung AMD processor laptop running Trisquel linux (Ubuntu 18.04) . It can manage 9534 threads and then after that it throw peculiar Exception
at java.base/java.lang.Thread.start0(Native Method) at java.base/java.lang.Thread.start(Thread.java:803) at Main.main(Main.java:11)
code :
public class MultithreadingRunnable implements Runnable {
public void run() {
System.out.println("ThreadID " + Thread.currentThread().getId());
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] ars) {
for(int i = 0;i<10000;i++){
Thread mr = new Thread(new MultithreadingRunnable());
mr.start();
}
}
}
0
votes
At least on Mac OS X 10.6 32bit, there is a limit (2560) by the operating system. Check this stackoverflow thread.
0
votes
0
votes
Additional information for modern (systemd) linux systems.
There are many resources about this of values that may need tweaking (such as How to increase maximum number of JVM threads (Linux 64bit)); however a new limit is imposed by way of the systemd "TasksMax" limit which sets pids.max on the cgroup.
For login sessions the UserTasksMax default is 33% of the kernel limit pids_max (usually 12,288) and can be override in /etc/systemd/logind.conf.
For services the DefaultTasksMax default is 15% of the kernel limit pids_max (usually 4,915). You can override it for the service by setting TasksMax in "systemctl edit" or update DefaultTasksMax in /etc/systemd/system.conf
0
votes
-5
votes
You can process any number of threads; there is no limit. I ran the following code while watching a movie and using NetBeans, and it worked properly/without halting the machine. I think you can keep even more threads than this program does.
class A extends Thread {
public void run() {
System.out.println("**************started***************");
for(double i = 0.0; i < 500000000000000000.0; i++) {
System.gc();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
System.out.println("************************finished********************************");
}
}
public class Manager {
public static void main(String[] args) {
for(double j = 0.0; j < 50000000000.0; j++) {
A a = new A();
a.start();
}
}
}
