Vincent:
Dammit! I just ordered the MB + CPUs ... My coding environment
will be in linux but i guess i can run the executable on NT. I've
heard that NT works well for 2-processor systems (but it does not
scale well over two on the other hand).
one statement and six questions for you:
1. on NT, multiple threads tend to *slow* performance when
a lot of memory allocation takes place. so much so, that
i've seen at least one add selling a special malloc lib
for multi-threaded systems. i'm picking up a lot of frus-
tration from your reply but apparently i NT sucks less
than linux under these loads...
2. do you know why GCC malloc/free is slow? can a person link against
a another, better library? (eg. ala "debug malloc" style).
3. is GCC merely exagerating an underlying O/S problem or is
GCC malloc/free *the* problem?
4. Who has had better SMP experience with respect
memory management? on HPUX? solaris?
5. How did you deal with swap with your book size memory job?
6. Does linux support the concept of swap zones ala NeXT?
7. In my code, I have many smallish objects. Memory pools made
a huge difference. I wonder if these could help you out.
Thanks-
Shane
>
> don't do that in linux.
> gcc library sucks bigtime.
> can crash after some hours.
>
> It does for my prog which is using bigtime alloc/deallocate
> when reading a book (about a gigabyte), which is like
> reading in a buffer then merging. during merging all kind of
> things need to be allocated and after merge deallocated.
>
> Under NT no problem.
> Under 95 ==> 3 times slower than NT
> under 98 ==> crash , big bugs in caching in 98
> under linux ==> slow slow slow ==> crash after 12 hours.
>
> Greetings,
> Vincent
>
> At 08:13 AM 8/10/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >Sir;
> >
> >i am beginning development of a CAD like program. it will be
> >threaded and multi-processor capable (well thanks to SMP O/S
> >like linux).
> >
> >as to the linux's memory management, suppose a program has
> >30 threads. each thread is allocating and deallocating memory.
> >
> >does linux block the other 29 threads when thread <X> wants
> >to malloc/free? how about other threads/processes in the process
> >table?
> >
> >in a regular, single-processor system, my original C++ program
> >spent 50% of its time in malloc/free. i reduced this time very
> >significantly by implementing memory pools. the basic algorithm is fairly
> >easy to split up across threads. hence linux SMP for more performance.
> >but i am wondering if i might be walking into a "technical snare"
> >with respect to linux and memory management.
> >
> >best regards,
> >Shane
> >-
> >Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/
> >To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
