From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 29 05:48:51 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A3B16A422; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:48:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE5943D7D; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:48:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jBT5mZTA072431; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:48:37 GMT (envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <43B378BA.10201@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:48:42 +0800 From: David Xu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050928 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason Evans References: <43B36B83.7080404@freebsd.org> <32729773-B07C-4AEE-92D0-62ACE0E3AFEB@freebsd.org> <43B36EB9.70205@freebsd.org> <2E722A13-C880-41B6-A84C-3927C8FE90E5@freebsd.org> <43B3768F.40704@freebsd.org> <811F628B-A89B-4359-A219-13B5337726A9@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <811F628B-A89B-4359-A219-13B5337726A9@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New malloc ready, take 42 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:48:51 -0000 Jason Evans wrote: > > On Dec 28, 2005, at 9:39 PM, David Xu wrote: > >> >> OK, I have linked /etc/malloc.conf to aj, this changes the performance: >> >> %super-smack ./select-key.smack 4 10000 >> Query Barrel Report for client smacker1 >> connect: max=23ms min=0ms avg= 5ms from 4 clients >> Query_type num_queries max_time min_time q_per_s >> select_index 80000 0 0 20480.54 >> select_index 80000 0 0 19734.14 >> select_index 80000 0 0 19846.49 >> select_index 80000 0 0 20045.10 >> select_index 80000 0 0 19544.33 >> >> but it still can not beat phkmalloc. :-) > > > What is the performance of phkmalloc under those testing conditions? > > Thanks, > Jason > > I remembered its highest number is 216xxx.