Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Re-consider jemalloc 5? #98

Open
Envek opened this issue Apr 28, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Re-consider jemalloc 5? #98

Envek opened this issue Apr 28, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@Envek
Copy link
Contributor

Envek commented Apr 28, 2022

Currently Fullstaq Ruby is being compiled only against jemalloc 3 and docs state following in README here:

Only Jemalloc 3 yields reduced memory usage, Jemalloc 5 does not.

However, there are evidences that jemalloc 5 with changed settings can have the almost same behavior as jemalloc 3, e.g. see here: https://twitter.com/wgjordan/status/1440574986264006659

Jemalloc 5 has time-based purging, the default (10sec) favors perf over memory usage. Set dirty_decay_ms:0,muzzy_decay_ms:0 for 3.6-like behavior, I found dirty_decay_ms:1000,muzzy_decay_ms:0 a good balanced tradeoff. I ran jemalloc 5.1 + Ruby 2.5 since 2018.

Describe the solution you'd like
So maybe it is time to give jemalloc 5 one more try?

Additional context
Some additional discussion can be seen here (however it is not public): https://railsperf.slack.com/archives/C0QKHT5LP/p1651118694838959

@jjb
Copy link

jjb commented Mar 7, 2023

I collected some info about jemalloc 5 here https://gist.github.com/jjb/9ff0d3f622c8bbe904fe7a82e35152fc

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants