On my machine with tcl 8.4.12
starting 10 malloc threads...waiting....done: 0 seconds, 16003 usec
starting 10 ns_malloc threads...waiting....done: 0 seconds, 13207 usec
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
Hi!
Running the nsthreadtest utility reveals some interesting facts:
Mac OSX
starting 10 malloc threads...waiting....done: 0 seconds, 48015 usec
starting 10 ns_malloc threads...waiting....done: 0 seconds, 75784 usec
Linux:
starting 10 malloc threads...waiting....done: 0 seconds, 9686 usec
starting 10 ns_malloc threads...waiting....done: 0 seconds, 30727 usec
Solaris:
starting 10 malloc threads...waiting....done: 0 seconds, 31668 usec
starting 10 ns_malloc threads...waiting....done: 0 seconds, 54280 usec
What is most interesting is not the absolute sizes but the
ratio between ns_malloc use and native malloc timings!
According to the output, the malloc is faster (quite significantly).
I recall times when it was the other way arround. The ns_malloc was
initially ment to be better (or more optimal) when using threads
as it would have less lock contention due to its internal handling.
What I'd ask you is to try to reproduce this on your machine
so we can see wether this is something generaly wrong or just
wrong at my site. In the former case we'd have to dig into and
see what is happening and if those tests are really to depend on
or not.
Cheers
Zoran
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log
files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
naviserver-devel mailing list
naviserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/naviserver-devel
--
Vlad Seryakov
571 262-8608 office
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.crystalballinc.com/vlad/
