Re: (ITS#6330) slapd memory leak

[quanah@zimbra.com]

--On Friday, October 16, 2009 9:24 AM -0700 Bill MacAllister 
<whm@stanford.edu> wrote:

>
>
> --On Friday, October 16, 2009 06:58:44 AM -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount
> <quanah@zimbra.com> wrote:
>
>> --On Friday, October 16, 2009 10:39 AM +0000 whm@stanford.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And in researching the problem I see that this is a well trodden path.
>>> I found a particularly useful thread from 2006 entitled "better malloc
>>> strageties" in the OpenLDAP archives.  As I result I packaged up
>>> libhoard, installed it, and re-ran the valgrind test.  The short test
>>> showed no memory leaks.  I will perform more extensive tests, but this
>>> appears to have fixed the problem.  Thanks for your work, then and
>>> now.
>>
>>  You were running slapd without hoard or tcmalloc???? That was a
>> basic requirement I put into place for Stanford ages ago.
>>
>> --Quanah
>
> The desire was to run as close to stock debian was we could.  The
> libhoard package was dropped from debian with the comment "I no longer
> use this software hence I orphan it."  I took that to mean that it was
> not maintained any more which was wrong.  The upstream source appears to
> be actively maintained.
>
> I was curious if you had an opinion about tcmalloc versus hoard?

I switched to tcmalloc due to licensing issues.  You can read Howard's 
presentation on the differences in how they behave (at some point in the 
past, tcmalloc has had a lot of development since then) at:

<http://www.openldap.org/pub/hyc/scale2007.pdf>

--Quanah

--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra, Inc
--------------------
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration