I'm of course interested in seeing whatever variants of the threaded malloc that are done. The original was also provided (with thanks) by the folks at AOL, designed on the original mods to threaded Tcl and high perf malloc for it.
If this is all just refined improvement on the same, then it should go straight back into the Tcl core. Jeff Hobbs, The Tcl Guy, http://www.ActiveState.com/ Jim Davidson wrote: > Folks, > > Nate and I spent a lot of time -- frankly, far too much time -- > chasing this down a few months back. We ended up completely re- > writing the multi-threaded allocator with features to reclaim memory, > fix stats counters which in the current code are broken and lie, and > added an "alloc" command with all sorts of fun introspection > features, and some monitoring adp pages. Nate will post it for folks > to try if interested -- consider it interesting but experimental :) > > -Jim > > > > On Jun 2, 2006, at 2:37 PM, Guan Yang wrote: > > > Thanks, > > > > What values would you suggest for NBUCKETS and MAXALLOC? > > > > And looking at tclThreadAlloc.c, I'm not quite sure how to make the > > spacing closer. > > > > Guan > > > > On 2 Jun 2006, at 19:28 , Jeff Rogers wrote: > > > >> I think one difference is in the tcl version itself; the latest > >> versions use a fast multithreaded allocator that allocates on > >> average slightly more than double the amount requestes, while > >> earlier versions may have been more frugal. You can cut your > >> memory usage by a third or more by increasing the number of > >> buckets defined in tclThreadAlloc.c and making the spacing closer; > >> there will be a bit more constant overhead and the allocator would > >> run microscopically slower. You may also want to look into the > >> ttrace module which makes all the tcl interpreters lazily load > >> their code instead of loading everything up front which can be a > >> significant savings but I have had very little luck with it (I > >> think the openacs code does too many fancy things to work well > >> with it). > >> > >> -J > >> > >> Guan Yang wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> A couple of weeks ago I moved a number of servers to AOLserver > >>> 4.0.10 from various versions of 3.4 because of the 10^9 seconds > >>> problem. After the move servers that were preivously using > >>> 100-120 MB of memory are now using around 300 MB to 400 MB each. > >>> I've tried to turn off or reduce adp and fastpath caches, > >>> reducing maxthreds to the 40's level. Stacksize is 500k. We have > >>> used more or less the same config files, with a few changes like > >>> the new nsopenssl configuration format. > >>> Has anyone else had experiences with memory usage after switching > >>> to AOLserver 4.0, and is there any easy way to reduce it? > >>> Thanks, > >>> Guan -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
