Issue #14718 has been updated by sam.saffron (Sam Saffron).


@mame I agree this is a problem it makes it slightly more complex to install Ruby. Ideally the build process could default to "trying to download" a specific version of jemalloc and building against it if it is unacceptable to include jemalloc in the source. I think it is important for Ruby to set proper defaults... and the default of "whatever jemalloc" is not a good default. 

I think short term just bundling 3.6.0 is the safest thing to do and then running with_jemalloc **only** on x64 Linux. 

----------------------------------------
Feature #14718: Use jemalloc by default?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14718#change-71999

* 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>