4 ms·
I've benchmarked them every few years, they never seem to differ by more than a few percent, and jemalloc seems to fragment and leak the least for processes run
by codexon 7mo ago
I've benchmarked them every few years, they never seem to differ by more than a few percent, and jemalloc seems to fragment and leak the least for processes running for months.
Mimalloc made the claim that they were the fastest/best when they released and that didn't hold up to real world testing, so I am not inclined to trust it now.
- ComputerGuru 7mo ago> Mimalloc made the claim that they were the fastest/best when they released and that didn't hold up to real world testing That’s… ahistorical, at least so far as I remember. It wasn’t marketed as either of those; it was marketed as small/simple/consistent with an opt-in high-severity mode, and then its performance bore out as a result of the first set of target features/design goals. It was mainly pushed as easy to adopt, easy to use, easy to statically link, etc.
- codexon 7mo ago> It was mainly pushed as easy to adopt, easy to use, easy to statically link, etc. That is true of basically every single malloc replacement out there, that is not a uniquely defining feature.
- jeffbee 7mo agomimalloc definitely made claims that could not be reproduced, or at least not by me. That's why I wrote this doc five years ago. "Irreproducible malloc benchmarks" https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/evnn6yoornh9p6l7nq1t9/Irreproducible-malloc-benchmarks.paper?rlkey=73mi4op4hfn7euqmry9bmnxtr&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/evnn6yoornh9p6l7nq1t9/Irrepro...