人们已经很好地解释了为什么不使用它，所以我将告诉你一些你应该使用它的情况:

(下面的评论适用于在带有CMS收集器的Linux上运行的Hotspot，在这里我有信心地说System.gc()实际上总是调用完整的垃圾收集)。

After the initial work of starting up your application, you may be a terrible state of memory usage. Half your tenured generation could be full of garbage, meaning that you are that much closer to your first CMS. In applications where that matters, it is not a bad idea to call System.gc() to "reset" your heap to the starting state of live data. Along the same lines as #1, if you monitor your heap usage closely, you want to have an accurate reading of what your baseline memory usage is. If the first 2 minutes of your application's uptime is all initialization, your data is going to be messed up unless you force (ahem... "suggest") the full gc up front. You may have an application that is designed to never promote anything to the tenured generation while it is running. But maybe you need to initialize some data up-front that is not-so-huge as to automatically get moved to the tenured generation. Unless you call System.gc() after everything is set up, your data could sit in the new generation until the time comes for it to get promoted. All of a sudden your super-duper low-latency, low-GC application gets hit with a HUGE (relatively speaking, of course) latency penalty for promoting those objects during normal operations. It is sometimes useful to have a System.gc call available in a production application for verifying the existence of a memory leak. If you know that the set of live data at time X should exist in a certain ratio to the set of live data at time Y, then it could be useful to call System.gc() a time X and time Y and compare memory usage.

Since objects are dynamically allocated by using the new operator, you might be wondering how such objects are destroyed and their memory released for later reallocation. In some languages, such as C++, dynamically allocated objects must be manually released by use of a delete operator. Java takes a different approach; it handles deallocation for you automatically. The technique that accomplishes this is called garbage collection. It works like this: when no references to an object exist, that object is assumed to be no longer needed, and the memory occupied by the object can be reclaimed. There is no explicit need to destroy objects as in C++. Garbage collection only occurs sporadically (if at all) during the execution of your program. It will not occur simply because one or more objects exist that are no longer used. Furthermore, different Java run-time implementations will take varying approaches to garbage collection, but for the most part, you should not have to think about it while writing your programs.

有时(不是经常!)您确实比运行时更了解过去、当前和将来的内存使用情况。这种情况并不经常发生，而且我敢说，在web应用程序中，当提供正常页面时，这种情况绝不会发生。

很多年前，我在一个报告生成器上工作

只有一根线 从队列中读取“报告请求” 从数据库加载报告所需的数据 生成报告并通过电子邮件发送出去。 没完没了地重复，没有特别的要求就睡去。 它没有在报告之间重复使用任何数据，也没有进行任何兑现。

首先，因为它不是实时的，而且用户希望等待报告，GC运行时的延迟不是问题，但是我们需要以比请求更快的速度生成报告。

看了上面的过程大纲，很明显。

我们知道，在报告通过电子邮件发送出去之后，活动对象会非常少，因为下一个请求还没有开始处理。 众所周知，运行垃圾收集周期的成本取决于活动对象的数量，垃圾的数量对GC运行的成本几乎没有影响。 当队列为空时，没有什么更好的事情可做，然后运行GC。

因此，当请求队列为空时执行GC运行显然是非常值得的;这并没有什么坏处。

在每个报告通过电子邮件发送之后执行GC运行可能是值得的，因为我们知道这是GC运行的好时机。但是，如果计算机有足够的ram，则可以通过延迟GC运行来获得更好的结果。

这种行为是在每个安装基础上配置的，对于一些客户来说，在每个报告之后启用强制GC可以大大加快报告的生成速度。(我认为这是由于他们服务器上的内存较低，并且运行了许多其他进程，因此强制GC减少了分页。)

每次工作队列为空时，我们从未检测到一个安装没有从强制GC运行中获益。

但是，需要明确的是，上述情况并不常见。

现在，我更倾向于在单独的进程中运行每个报告，让操作系统清理内存，而不是使用垃圾收集器，并让自定义队列管理器服务在大型服务器上使用多个工作进程。

也许我写的代码很糟糕，但我已经意识到在eclipse和netbeans ide上点击垃圾桶图标是一个“好的实践”。

人们已经很好地解释了为什么不使用它，所以我将告诉你一些你应该使用它的情况:

(下面的评论适用于在带有CMS收集器的Linux上运行的Hotspot，在这里我有信心地说System.gc()实际上总是调用完整的垃圾收集)。

After the initial work of starting up your application, you may be a terrible state of memory usage. Half your tenured generation could be full of garbage, meaning that you are that much closer to your first CMS. In applications where that matters, it is not a bad idea to call System.gc() to "reset" your heap to the starting state of live data. Along the same lines as #1, if you monitor your heap usage closely, you want to have an accurate reading of what your baseline memory usage is. If the first 2 minutes of your application's uptime is all initialization, your data is going to be messed up unless you force (ahem... "suggest") the full gc up front. You may have an application that is designed to never promote anything to the tenured generation while it is running. But maybe you need to initialize some data up-front that is not-so-huge as to automatically get moved to the tenured generation. Unless you call System.gc() after everything is set up, your data could sit in the new generation until the time comes for it to get promoted. All of a sudden your super-duper low-latency, low-GC application gets hit with a HUGE (relatively speaking, of course) latency penalty for promoting those objects during normal operations. It is sometimes useful to have a System.gc call available in a production application for verifying the existence of a memory leak. If you know that the set of live data at time X should exist in a certain ratio to the set of live data at time Y, then it could be useful to call System.gc() a time X and time Y and compare memory usage.

首先，规范和现实之间是有区别的。规范说System.gc()提示GC应该运行，VM可以忽略它。实际情况是，VM永远不会忽略对System.gc()的调用。

Calling GC comes with a non-trivial overhead to the call and if you do this at some random point in time it's likely you'll see no reward for your efforts. On the other hand, a naturally triggered collection is very likely to recoup the costs of the call. If you have information that indicates that a GC should be run than you can make the call to System.gc() and you should see benefits. However, it's my experience that this happens only in a few edge cases as it's very unlikely that you'll have enough information to understand if and when System.gc() should be called.

这里列出了一个例子，在IDE中敲击垃圾桶。如果你要去开会，为什么不去呢?开销不会影响您，当您返回时，可能会清理堆。在生产系统中执行此操作，频繁调用收集将使其彻底停止!即使是RMI偶尔发出的调用也会对性能造成破坏。