--On Friday, October 16, 2009 9:24 AM -0700 Bill MacAllister <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > --On Friday, October 16, 2009 06:58:44 AM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> --On Friday, October 16, 2009 10:39 AM +0000 [email protected] wrote: >> >> >>> And in researching the problem I see that this is a well trodden path. >>> I found a particularly useful thread from 2006 entitled "better malloc >>> strageties" in the OpenLDAP archives. As I result I packaged up >>> libhoard, installed it, and re-ran the valgrind test. The short test >>> showed no memory leaks. I will perform more extensive tests, but this >>> appears to have fixed the problem. Thanks for your work, then and >>> now. >> >> You were running slapd without hoard or tcmalloc???? That was a >> basic requirement I put into place for Stanford ages ago. >> >> --Quanah > > The desire was to run as close to stock debian was we could. The > libhoard package was dropped from debian with the comment "I no longer > use this software hence I orphan it." I took that to mean that it was > not maintained any more which was wrong. The upstream source appears to > be actively maintained. > > I was curious if you had an opinion about tcmalloc versus hoard? I switched to tcmalloc due to licensing issues. You can read Howard's presentation on the differences in how they behave (at some point in the past, tcmalloc has had a lot of development since then) at: <http://www.openldap.org/pub/hyc/scale2007.pdf> --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
