24 ms·
Interesting, is there an accompanying article? We've tried tcmalloc, too. I don't remember the exact details, but we basically ended using jemalloc because it
by imp0cat 17d ago
Interesting, is there an accompanying article?
We've tried tcmalloc, too. I don't remember the exact details, but we basically ended using jemalloc because it was using way less memory.
Same story with mimalloc - it usually provided a tiny bit more speed, but required more cpu and memory.
- skavi 17d agono article, sorry, grabbed the numbers from an old PR. to confirm, you were using tcmalloc from https://github.com/google/tcmalloc https://github.com/google/tcmalloc and not from https://github.com/gperftools/gperftools https://github.com/gperftools/gperftools, right? the latter is a lot worse iiuc.
- imp0cat 17d agoGood point. It was from the https://packages.debian.org/trixie/google-perftools https://packages.debian.org/trixie/google-perftools Debian package, which points to the gperftools project - so it was the worse one I guess.
- skavi 17d agoyeah that’s a common mistake when evaluating tcmalloc. gperftools tcmalloc diverged quite a while ago. doesn’t have a lot of the fancier features of modern tcmalloc [0]. [0]: https://github.com/google/tcmalloc/blob/master/docs/gperftools.md#differences https://github.com/google/tcmalloc/blob/master/docs/gperftoo...