Re: [xml] 2.5.x performance vs. 2.4.24

On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:31:36AM -0700, Grant Goodale wrote:
      I require thread support, so recompiling without them isn't an
option.  Nevertheless, I got the same results after rebuilding without

  libxml2 used not the be configured with threads by default.

thread support.  Any other thoughts?  Is there a public ftp site where I
can post the document for other people to try this?

  gzip and mail as an attachment, I don't allow upload on my FTP servers
anymore :-) . gzipped the 3mb file will certainly reduce to something
okay by mail. Make a gzipped tar if other resources are needed to reproduce
the problem.

      Another data point - the time between brk() calls in 2.4.24
while running this test is approx. 7 ms.  In 2.5.8, it's approx. 100ms.
Have the built-in memory management functions changed much between the
two versions?

  Well the memory management is delegated to the C (the pthread one
on Linux actually) library. If not configured with threads the old
version would pick up glibc allocation function, the new one ill use
pthread allocation function. On AS 2.1 the pthread memory allocator is
slower than the glibc one, but this can't account for a 100x slowdown
anyway !


Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit | Rpmfind RPM search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]