3 ms·
I hadn't heard this before, also sold by small image sizes. What is the big performance weakness of mscl vs glibc? Anything beyond binary size vs shared pages?
by kjeetgill 7y ago
I hadn't heard this before, also sold by small image sizes. What is the big performance weakness of mscl vs glibc?
Anything beyond binary size vs shared pages?
- the8472 7y agoglibc has thread-local pools for malloc, afaik musl uses locks.
- arcticfox 7y agoI'm very weak when it comes to stuff at this level but this sounds like it might be something I really want to know. If I want to run Python or Ruby, what is the practical downside to Alpine? Am I understanding correctly that Python or Ruby interpreters built to run on Alpine use musl instead of glibc, and that might have very noticeable performance impacts? This thread is opening my eyes, I kind of assumed as long as I was running the right version of those interpreters, I was getting more or less the same thing. That feels like a very bad assumption now.
- capableweb 7y agoAs always when it comes to performance, you should measure the difference yourself and see if it's a switch worth doing for your use case. "very noticeable performance impacts" depends so much on the context that it's hard to answer in a general way.
- jiux 7y ago> also sold by small image sizes. Out of curiosity, what sold you on this? Has caching of a docker image been considered in this conclusion as well?
- kjeetgill 7y agoI was just a casual local user, and didn't have any production use of it. At the time, if my memory serves, images easily got into many GB locally. This was before Ubuntu and others had produced smaller official images of their own.