Custom Memory Allocator for engine since b85869

[Xeno]

Dunno if its related to those memor allocators, but performance dropped significantly with the latest beta. Im on Win7 x64.

Yes, you are right. Performance is not as good as before.

And just one smokeshell will half FPS for you or even worse (though not related and not new, available since A1, and maybe since OFP).

And who cares about bugs like this:
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/17458

A3 will fix all of this. Or not ?

Xeno

[Dwarden]

After some googling I've discovered that the "TBB" in TBB3/4 stands for Thread Building Blocks. Never heard of that before.

TBB4 seems to be quite new (available since the beginning of September).

wonder why googling was involved when it's linked from the BIKI page listed in first thread

---------- Post added at 02:11 ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 ----------

A few questions:

• Should we test tbb4malloc_bi.dll?
• What is different to tbb3malloc_bi.dll?
• Should we test some other, like the open source ones - which ones?
• How to test? What to look for in testing?
• Prio is stability, performance and then memory usage?

Thanks

as You can read in TBB4 news and details
http://threadingbuildingblocks.org/whatsnew.php
http://threadingbuildingblocks.org/f...s&benefits.php

the memalloc was further improved hence i suggest You try v4 if it fits better (TBB3 is default now)...

from my experience with some other projects (can't talk about they not ours anyway) which switched to v4 and it works better ...

but this ofcourse may differ due to many variables and that's why modular approach is best of all worlds

---------- Post added at 02:16 ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 ----------

Update - Maybe nedmalloc should be my focus point instead of hoard

http://www.nedprod.com/programs/portable/nedmalloc/

It looks like BI will provide the above list, execpt for the last of course....

:-D So maybe I should just be patient.....

keep in mind what Suma posted here:
http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost....3&postcount=92

We have used several memory allocators written by experts, including TCMalloc, NedMalloc and jemalloc. Most of them broke down under the ArmA 2 load, causing memory corruption or crashes.

[themaster303]

Yes, you are right. Performance is not as good as before.

And just one smokeshell will half FPS for you or even worse (though not related and not new, available since A1, and maybe since OFP).

Xeno

dont have this. have it with newest beta and -malloc=tbb4malloc_bi.

viewdistance 3500, on chernarus. 60 fps on most parts. if i drop one smoke
no fps drop maybe sometimes 1 frame less.

if i throw 9 smokes, than it went down to 40 fps. but thats normal, and for me it was less than in older betas.

will test more, but for me its running better.

can you implement that in takeonhelli ?? there it would also help to get better performence.

[Tonci87]

Yes, you are right. Performance is not as good as before.

And just one smokeshell will half FPS for you or even worse (though not related and not new, available since A1, and maybe since OFP).

And who cares about bugs like this:
http://dev-heaven.net/issues/17458

A3 will fix all of this. Or not ?

Xeno

Wow someone is in a very bad mood today.

[MadDogX]

wonder why googling was involved when it's linked from the BIKI page listed in first thread

I guess I just missed the fact that it was a link.

So I wonder which of these memory allocators was #3 - the "winner" of the malloc poll.

[Dwarden]

I guess I just missed the fact that it was a link.

So I wonder which of these memory allocators was #3 - the "winner" of the malloc poll.

i think the answer is quite clear (see quote of SUMA's post and the default memalloc)

tho often these answers have short living temporary frame

[themaster303]

tested it again , with command -malloc=tbb4malloc_bi and without.

brings me on same spot in multiplayer about 15-20 fps more.

really like that option.

and just expermient more, i love to check new things. keep carry on like this.
the better 1.60 is, the better will be arma3

thx for making it better and better !

[@ST]

tested it again , with command -malloc=tbb4malloc_bi and without.

brings me on same spot in multiplayer about 15-20 fps more.

really like that option.

and just expermient more, i love to check new things. keep carry on like this.
the better 1.60 is, the better will be arma3

thx for making it better and better !

Confirmed, performance is maximised with command '-malloc=tbb4malloc_bi'

[Guess Who]

Tried to test it today. It seems the command "-malloc=..." doesn't work. Excerpt from my RPT:

 
 
=====================================================================
== C:\Games\ArmA2\Expansion\beta\arma2oa.exe
== "C:\Games\ArmA2\Expansion\beta\arma2oa.exe" -mod=Expansion\beta;Expansion\beta\Expansion;@CBA;@CBA_dependent;@Islands;@Units;@Weapons;@Tweaks -exThreads=7 -nosplash -malloc=tbb4malloc_bi
=====================================================================
Exe timestamp: 2011/10/30 09:03:46
Current time:  2011/10/30 14:26:17
Version 1.59.85876
Allocator: C:\Games\ArmA2\Expansion\beta\dll\tbb3malloc_bi.dll
Item str_disp_server_control listed twice
[149,22.569,0.047,"XEH: PostInit Started"]
[149,22.634,0.047,"CBA_VERSIONING: cba=0.8.2.169, "]
[149,22.666,0.047,"XEH: PostInit Finished. State: _isClient=true, _isJip=false, _isDedClient=false, _isServer=true, _isDedServer=false, _playerCheckDone=true, _sp=true, _startInitDone=true, _postInitDone=true, _mpRespawn=false, _machineType=1, _sessionId=1"]
Global "scripts" folder no longer supported, 'initJIPcompatible.sqf' ignored

Am I doing something wrong here?
"tbb4malloc_bi.dll" get's loaded though if you delete or rename "tbb3malloc_bi.dll".

[mr.g-c]

Confirmed, performance is maximised with command '-malloc=tbb4malloc_bi'

Absolutely!
Wow!
Can confirm.... much smoother....
So "tbb3malloc" will be deleted from my DLL Folder...