why jemalloc expand virtual memory space so quickly

Ma, Bo bma at websense.com
Wed Aug 3 23:52:41 PDT 2011

Hi Guys,
    It seems that gemalloc costs more virtual memory than glibc_malloc.
We are estimating the possibility that replace glibc_malloc by jemalloc.We have seen that jemalloc is really
faster than glibc_malloc and costs less physical memory.But the amount  of virtual memory increase  quickly.
Though we ends our test,it still occupies many virtual memory.
Because we have more physical memory than 4G but we are still using 32bit Linux,virtual memory is also badly needed.
Is there any way to reduce the virtual memory cost of jemalloc?


 Physical Memory:
[cid:image003.png at 01CC52B3.4E733B20]

Virtual Memory:
[cid:image004.png at 01CC52B3.4E733B20]

 Protected by Websense Hosted Email Security -- www.websense.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://jemalloc.net/mailman/jemalloc-discuss/attachments/20110804/e830c956/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 33324 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://jemalloc.net/mailman/jemalloc-discuss/attachments/20110804/e830c956/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 35863 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://jemalloc.net/mailman/jemalloc-discuss/attachments/20110804/e830c956/attachment-0001.png>

More information about the jemalloc-discuss mailing list