Comments on: Linux (still) trumps OS X

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 29 May 2006 22:48:52 +0000

first, it is commendable tthat you have the intellectual honestesty to admit that you did not initially understand how your libraries/code used memory resoureces (to the detriment of acuurately representing os/x).

yes, apple’s profiling tool - shark - like most other apple tools are a damn sight better than linux tools.

second, you should rephrase your comparison as between Darwin (the mach/bsd xnu kernel) and os/x proper. There is much more to os/x than just the opensource component; while Darwin is a fine *nix platform, it is the value-added elements (like cocoa) which make os/x truly sing.

finally, it would be nice to see some sustained and systematic follow-up on this issue … since you started this wildfire you have an obligation to help put it out … remember: Smokey Says Dont Play with Matches

cheers: zahadum

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 29 May 2006 02:04:55 +0000

Um, perhaps the OS X alloc is tuned for good performance on the Obj-C runtime? Which, btw, uses memory pools most of the time. My implication being that the malloc’s tuned for use as a secondary allocator, below the pools.

By all means, different apps should tweak out their memory allocators as needed. Of course, that’s why the STL lets you choose which allocator to use (and write your own) for every container you wish!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 29 May 2006 00:27:09 +0000

It would have been nice if you had linked to the “Ridiculous Fish” blog article where the malloc issue was first explained:
http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/archives/2006/05/16/36/

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 28 May 2006 22:34:57 +0000

Congratulations. You have definitively proven that you can write inefficient MacOS X code, and nothing more.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 28 May 2006 06:49:34 +0000

Just a loose thought, the title ought to read “dlmalloc betters malloc when extensively using a particular application”? What I get from this isn’t “use Linux, its faster”, I get “use dlmalloc (on large applications), its faster”…

I’m a little out my depth to comment on this aspect, but I wonder if the small (default) memory allocation for malloc in OS X ties with Apple’s (default) optimisation for size rather than speed approach?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 23:57:58 +0000

> … OS X against Doug Lea’s malloc (called dmalloc for short).

The hyperlinks (and the “for short” name) are incorrect. dmalloc is a debugging memory allocation library written by Gary Watson, designed to detect allocation overruns, underruns, leaks, and memory arena corruption. The hyperlinks provided do point to this excellent tool.

However, Doug Lea’s optimized malloc() library, often referred to as dlmalloc (note ‘l’), is available at ftp://g.oswego.edu/pub/misc/malloc.c

I suggest you fix your hyperlinks, and change all occurrences of “dmalloc” to “dlmalloc” in your article.