> If you hammer a 100GB-1TB heap in steady state with small allocations for, say, a month at 100% CPU, does it eventually do the typical Java thing, where a major compaction takes the process down for seconds or even minutes, or does it just slow down application requests so it can keep up with load?

No. Every garbage collection in Java relocates objects. Compared to malloc, memory fragmentation in long-lived processes is less of a concern. Freelists track only large segments of available memory. The allocator reserves a segment per thread and simply advances a pointer. Small short-lived objects are never visited by the collector. Instead, live siblings are relocated elsewhere before the entire segment is reclaimed.

The above holds true for all of the collectors. The difference is how they deal with concurrent changes to object pointers by the application. Generally, stopping the world uses less net CPU than the memory barriers required by G1GC and ZGC, but most applications are willing to provide more memory and CPU in exchange for shorter pauses.

> Does it provide hard latency bounds like Azul does (did?), and are they lower than disk/network latencies on modern hardware?

Yes and yes (although we need to be more precise when we talk about latencies; see next paragraph).

> These days, disks are 100s micros to single digit millis, so I guess if Java GC is finally working 30 years after they “fixed” its performance problems, then I’d want to be able to tune ZGC to not pause the app for more than ~ 500us, max.

1. You don't need to tune it. The algorithm simply doesn't collect garbage in stop-the-world pauses.

2. Hiccups are sporadic. They should not be compared to the average latency of normal operation. The relevant question is, is ZGC introducing longer hiccups than those a non-realtime kernel would, and the answer is no.

> This article is from last year, but suggests they’re still off by an order of magnitude

The article doesn't measure GC pauses when it shows latencies (it says: "With ZGC on the other hand, the longest GC pause time observed is ~50 microseconds"). It measures the response latencies of some service. Note that allocation stalls also occur with malloc, it just isn't reported conveniently.

Of course, one of the greatest advantages of moving collectors still applies: Under high allocation rates, moving collectors (but not malloc/free!) allow you to compensate for increased CPU spent on memory management by increasing the heap (i.e. if your allocation rate doubles, you can increase the heap and keep the CPU cost of memory management the same). In the past, this advantage translated to higher throughputs compared to malloc/free, but suffered from GC pauses. Those pauses are gone today.

> If you hammer a 100GB-1TB heap in steady state with small allocations for, say, a month at 100% CPU, does it eventually do the typical Java thing, where a major compaction takes the process down for seconds or even minutes, or does it just slow down application requests so it can keep up with load?

No, it does not. You could, of course, construct some pathological cases where you'd have a high allocation rate for long-lived objects which would result in high CPU utilisation by the GC, but it's easier to get into pathological malloc/free cases in C++ (or Rust) than with ZGC. Let me put it another way: no matter your memory management strategy, it's possible to overwhelm it, but the likelihood that a real, "naive" program would overwhelm a malloc/free allocator is higher than it would the JDK's GCs.