As IDM implementations get larger and larger, GC becomes a bigger issue.

Looking at the JVM stats in 4.5, I see that two GC's are running.

<GARBAGE_COLLECTION_STATS>
<COLLECTOR>
<NAME>PS Scavenge</NAME>
<COLLECTION_COUNT>13163</COLLECTION_COUNT>
<COLLECTION_TIME>39630 ms</COLLECTION_TIME>
</COLLECTOR>
<COLLECTOR>
<NAME>PS MarkSweep</NAME>
<COLLECTION_COUNT>11</COLLECTION_COUNT>
<COLLECTION_TIME>2215 ms</COLLECTION_TIME>
</COLLECTOR>
</GARBAGE_COLLECTION_STATS>

Looking at this nice page:
http://www.fasterj.com/articles/oraclecollectors1.shtml

It seems like IDM is using the equivalent of:
-XX:+UseParallelGC -XX:+UseParallelOldGC

But is it using the UseAdaptiveSizePolicy or not? And would it help, or
not?

Note: I exclude User App in its entirety from this discussion, only
focussing on the engine and the drivers.

This crowd has odd exposure to things, and I was wondering if anyone had
thoughts on the GC in use here.

I would ask the same question in Designer, where GC kills performance.
(Since every tab holds open a complete copy of the project, closing it,
frees up tons of memory that needs to be collected, all the time). My
feeling is Designer is doing a bad job of it and the engine is doing a
better job, but I am not sure.