Issue #14718 has been updated by bluz71 (Dennis B).


mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote:

> (Don't get me wrong: I'm never against jemalloc nor this feature.  I'm purely unsure.)

It is right to be unsure and sceptical.

But in this case we do have years worth of experience with the benefits being clear and tangible for multiple users, not just Mike Perham (or Sam Saffron).

If this were to happen a `--without-jemalloc` flag should be provided.

----------------------------------------
Feature #14718: Use jemalloc by default?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14718#change-71948

* Author: mperham (Mike Perham)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
----------------------------------------
I know Sam opened #9113 4 years ago to suggest this but I'm revisiting the topic to see if there's any movement here for Ruby 2.6 or 2.7.  I supply a major piece of Ruby infrastructure (Sidekiq) and I keep hearing over and over how Ruby is terrible with memory, a huge memory hog with their Rails apps.  My users switch to jemalloc and a miracle occurs: their memory usage drops massively.  Some data points:

https://twitter.com/brandonhilkert/status/987400365627801601
https://twitter.com/d_jones/status/989866391787335680
https://github.com/mperham/sidekiq/issues/3824#issuecomment-383072469

Redis moved to jemalloc many years ago and it solved all of their memory issues too.  Their conclusion: the glibc allocator "sucks really really hard". http://oldblog.antirez.com/post/everything-about-redis-24.html

This is a real pain point for the entire Rails community and would improve Ruby's reputation immensely if we can solve this problem.



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>