talloc pools -- if someone feels like it, please comment

Volker Lendecke Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Wed Jan 9 22:22:22 GMT 2008

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Jim McDonough wrote:
> So what kinds of usage numbers have you seen with this?   In
> particular, since it's not reused until the whole pool is freed..

Well, if I only knew. It seems that my benchmarking machine
(Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2210, 6GB) is quite
random in the results it produces. I get results ranging
from 118MB/sec up to 130MB/sec, all with the same binary. I
run the standard 4-client netbench run with 600 seconds. I
thought I would get significant speedup of about 5% with the
talloc pools, but I can't reproduce that anymore now.

What it does do is if you run cachegrind, the number of
Irefs in malloc goes down from about 12 billion to a bit
over 9 with talloc pools, where 3.0.28 takes 8.6 billion
Irefs according to cachegrind. But I'm not sure this relates
in any way to the performance you will see in real benchmark

It's late here, I won't solve this today anymore.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20080109/7558db55/attachment.bin

More information about the samba-technical mailing list