apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko ─îibej <br...@xbc.nu>
Subject Re: Poor performance with new apr_pool
Date Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:42:32 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> 2009/3/26 Branko ─îibej <brane@xbc.nu>:
>   
>> Maybe it's just me, but all that seems like a monumental waste of time.
>>     
>
> If we can't beat the old system by COB tomorrow consistently, then I
> think we can simply revert it or we add tcmalloc as a compile-time
> option if it's not too complex to use that.  Either way, it's not that
> big of a deal - and we've spent more time testing it than it did to
> code it.
>   

Well the message I got was, "we're ripping this ancient slow pool stuff
out 'cause malloc is faster."

> Many many folks had claimed that libc's had gotten a lot better - if
> we've now proven they haven't, then that's very useful information and
> we can go back to what we had.  The last time we had really touched
> the pool code was back in 2001, so it was reasonable to explore
> whether or not things had fundamentally changed.  -- justin
>   

Oh, libc's *have* gotten a lot better, at least some of those I've had
the misfortune to be acquainted with. :-P But there's a difference
between "better" and "good".


-- Brane

Mime
View raw message