upvote

points

by hrmtst938372 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby codexon2 hours ago|
[-]
It still beat mimalloc when I checked 4-5 years ago.
reply
upvoteby imp0cat2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You really need to benchmark your workloads, ideally with the "big 3" (jemalloc, tcmalloc, mimalloc). They all have their strengths and weaknesses.

Jemalloc can usually keep the smallest memory footprint, followed by tcmalloc.

Mimalloc can really speed things up sometimes.

As usually, YMMV.

reply
upvoteby codexon1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I've benchmarked them every few years, they never seem to differ by more than a few percent, and jemalloc seems to fragment and leak the least for processes running for months.

Mimalloc made the claim that they were the fastest/best when they released and that didn't hold up to real world testing, so I am not inclined to trust it now.

reply
upvoteby ComputerGuru1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Mimalloc made the claim that they were the fastest/best when they released and that didn't hold up to real world testing

That’s… ahistorical, at least so far as I remember. It wasn’t marketed as either of those; it was marketed as small/simple/consistent with an opt-in high-severity mode, and then its performance bore out as a result of the first set of target features/design goals. It was mainly pushed as easy to adopt, easy to use, easy to statically link, etc.

reply
upvoteby codexon33 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
> It was mainly pushed as easy to adopt, easy to use, easy to statically link, etc.

That is true of basically every single malloc replacement out there, that is not a uniquely defining feature.

reply
upvoteby HackerThemAll47 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Look up the numbers in other comments above. When it comes to performance, the Google's tcmalloc is unconquered.
reply