Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:56:00 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> To: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New libc malloc patch Message-ID: <439CE6C0.8050107@dougbarton.us> In-Reply-To: <FA8E6DB7-A1A3-4F19-9850-756E48DB97D7@canonware.com> References: <B6653214-2181-4342-854D-323979D23EE8@canonware.com> <Pine.LNX.4.53.0511291121360.27754@regurgitate.ugcs.caltech.edu> <0B746373-8C29-4ADF-9218-311AE08F3834@canonware.com> <b41c75520512031245q48521143m@mail.gmail.com> <7318D807-9086-4817-A40B-50D6960880FB@canonware.com> <b41c75520512040451t360eb01u@mail.gmail.com> <12CA5E15-D006-441D-A24C-1BCD1A69D740@canonware.com> <439CC5DA.3080103@elischer.org> <FA8E6DB7-A1A3-4F19-9850-756E48DB97D7@canonware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jason Evans wrote: > It would be very informative to run benchmarks with real world > multithreaded apps. bind9 (built with threading support) would be a > great candidate, Maybe someday, but not at the moment. I've been told by the folks at ISC that in it's current form, threading is a pessimization on all versions of BIND 9 prior to the 9.4 code that they have in CVS (which has not been generally released). Thus, I would not expect performance of BIND 9 with threads to be an accurate reflection of the effectiveness of the library. hth, Doug -- If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?439CE6C0.8050107>