Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 14:41:35 +0100 (BST) From: Paul Richards <paul@isl.cf.ac.uk> To: nate@sneezy.sri.com Cc: Kai.Vorma@hut.fi, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Two proposals Message-ID: <199504021341.OAA19776@isl.cf.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <199504011746.KAA19377@trout.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Apr 1, 95 10:46:00 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply to Nate Williams who said > > Is that the CSRI malloc? I wasn't aware of that. As far as slow goes, > benchmarks Righ Murphy did a while ago put it *much* faster than our > current malloc and not much slower than GNU malloc. (And I think once > it was faster than GNU malloc). I'd prefer something that was more > space effecient that wasn't *really* slow vs. something that was a bit > faster but wasn't quite as effecient. Well, one consideration is that if you're running out of memory a more efficient malloc is going to be faster than swapping, even if the malloc itself is a little slower. I seem to run out of memory a lot even with 16Mb and the machine (a P5-90) suddenly slows right down beacuse of all the disk access taking place, more efficient memory usage would probably be a win. -- Paul Richards, FreeBSD core team member. Internet: paul@FreeBSD.org, URL: http://isl.cf.ac.uk/~paul/ Phone: +44 1222 874000 x6646 (work), +44 1222 457651 (home) Dept. Mechanical Engineering, University of Wales, College Cardiff.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504021341.OAA19776>