[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I've just joined the list and have only poked about drizzle a bit, so > please don't beat me up too much.
Awww... where's the fun in that? (welcome... glad to have you) > On 10/10/08 14:51, Monty Taylor wrote: > > (snip...) >> Coming soon: >> >> > (snip...) >> Examine HOARD allocator >> > > Is HOARD already used by Drizzle? Nope. Just something Mats was suggesting the other day. > One other worth investigating that has a lot of miles on it already > (especially in terms of scaling to lots of cores/threads and handling > cache alignment) is libumem. It too is portable (ported from > OpenSolaris by the OmniTI guys) and is also a dropin replacement for > standard allocators. It's newer than HOARD in that it has only been > available in userspace since Solaris 9, but it's a port of the original > multithreaded slab allocator which has been around since the mid '90s. > In addition to it's speed/concurrency, it has a bunch of things to > simplify development. I like things that simplify development. > Two quick references: > https://labs.omniti.com/trac/portableumem/ > http://blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/solaris_10_top_11_20 Interesting... I'll read up on it just on general principle. Unfortunately, it's CDDL, so it's completely useless from a practical standpoint. (/me grumbles about CDDL) > Anyway, if you're going to study baseline/HOARD, it could be worth > looking at baseline/HOARD/libumem. HOWEVER - it would be fun to pit HOARD and libumem against each other and, if libumem excels in something, perhaps we can point the HOARD guy at it and taunt him and stuff. :) Monty _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
