svn commit: samba r2733 - in branches/SAMBA_4_0: .

[tridge at samba.org]

Author: tridge
Date: 2004-09-28 14:37:28 +0000 (Tue, 28 Sep 2004)
New Revision: 2733

WebSVN: http://websvn.samba.org/websvn/changeset.php?rep=samba&path=/branches/SAMBA_4_0&rev=2733&nolog=1

Log:
added a note on performance




Modified:
   branches/SAMBA_4_0/talloc_guide.txt


Changeset:
Modified: branches/SAMBA_4_0/talloc_guide.txt
===================================================================
--- branches/SAMBA_4_0/talloc_guide.txt	2004-09-28 14:13:46 UTC (rev 2732)
+++ branches/SAMBA_4_0/talloc_guide.txt	2004-09-28 14:37:28 UTC (rev 2733)
@@ -39,6 +39,18 @@
 is handled.
 
 
+Performance
+-----------
+
+All the additional features of talloc() over malloc() do come at a
+price. We have a simple performance test in Samba4 that measures
+talloc() versus malloc() performance, and it seems that talloc() is
+about 10% slower than malloc() on my x86 Debian Linux box. For Samba,
+the great reduction in code complexity that we get by using talloc
+makes this worthwhile, especially as the total overhead of
+talloc/malloc in Samba is already quite small.
+
+
 talloc API
 ----------