You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@trafficserver.apache.org by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> on 2015/04/21 23:38:30 UTC
[FEATURE REMOVAL v6.0.0] Reclaimable freelist
This feature is poorly understood and supported. We are currently working on a new feature with slab allocators and buddy allocation scheme. In addition, we also have the ability to run without freelist at all, and use jemalloc or tcmalloc instead.
This is tracked in the Jira
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-3542
and
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-3122
Unless we hear otherwise within 1 week, this will be implemented for 6.0.0.
— Leif
Re: [FEATURE REMOVAL v6.0.0] Reclaimable freelist
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> This feature is poorly understood and supported. We are currently working on a new feature with slab allocators and buddy allocation scheme. In addition, we also have the ability to run without freelist at all, and use jemalloc or tcmalloc instead.
>
> This is tracked in the Jira
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-3542
>
> and
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-3122
>
>
> Unless we hear otherwise within 1 week, this will be implemented for 6.0.0.
No objections have been made to this, so we will proceed with this proposal.
— Leif
Re: [FEATURE REMOVAL v6.0.0] Reclaimable freelist
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> This feature is poorly understood and supported. We are currently working on a new feature with slab allocators and buddy allocation scheme. In addition, we also have the ability to run without freelist at all, and use jemalloc or tcmalloc instead.
>
> This is tracked in the Jira
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-3542
>
> and
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-3122
>
>
> Unless we hear otherwise within 1 week, this will be implemented for 6.0.0.
No objections have been made to this, so we will proceed with this proposal.
— Leif