Re: Thread-local malloc discussion summary

[Ganesan R <rganesan-ldap@myrealbox.com>]

>>>>> "Luke" == Luke Howard <lukeh@PADL.COM> writes:

> I know I've pointed this out many times before, but it is interesting
> to note that one of the larger differences between two major versions
> of a well-known UMich-derived LDAP server was switching to a third-
> party, multi-threaded malloc library.

Hoard (http://www.hoard.org) comes to mind. Why build a custom allocator
when there is an excellent free one out there? Plus, it's easy enough to
test performance with hoard to see if it makes a difference.

Ganesan

-- 
Ganesan R