On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 02:21 -0400, Richard Lowe wrote:
> I built in the normal fashion, with the CBE compilers
> (cc: Sun C 5.9 SunOS_i386 Patch 124868-10 2009/04/30), and 12u1 lint.
>
> I'm not subscribed to zfs-discuss, but have you established whether the
> problematic build is DEBUG? (the bits I uploaded were non-DEBUG).
That would make a *huge* difference. DEBUG bits have zero optimization,
and also have a great number of sanity tests included that are absent
from the non-DEBUG bits. If these are expensive checks on a hot code
path, it can have a very nasty impact on performance.
Now that said, I *hope* the bits that Nexenta delivered were *not*
DEBUG. But I've seen at least one bug that makes me think we might be
delivering DEBUG binaries. I'll check into it.
-- Garrett
>
> -- Rich
>
> Haudy Kazemi wrote:
> >>> Could it somehow not be compiling 64-bit support?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Brent Jones
> >>>
> >>
> >> I thought about that but it says when it boots up that it is 64-bit, and
> >> I'm able to run
> >> 64-bit binaries. I wonder if it's compiling for the wrong processor
> >> optomization though?
> >> Maybe if it is missing some of the newer SSEx instructions the zpool
> >> checksum checking is
> >> slowed down significantly? I don't know how to check for this though and
> >> it seems strange
> >> it would slow it down this significantly. I'd expect even a non-SSE
> >> enabled
> >> binary to be able to calculate a few hundred MB of checksums per second for
> >> a 2.5+ghz processor.
> >>
> >> Chad
> >
> > Would it be possible to do a closer comparison between Rich Lowe's fast 142
> > build and your slow 142 build? For example run a diff on the source, build
> > options, and build scripts. If the build settings are close enough, a
> > comparison of the generated binaries might be a faster way to narrow things
> > down (if the optimizations are different then a resultant binary comparison
> > probably won't be useful).
> >
> > You said previously that:
> >> The procedure I followed was basically what is outlined here:
> >> http://insanum.com/blog/2010/06/08/how-to-build-opensolaris
> >>
> >> using the SunStudio 12 compilers for ON and 12u1 for lint.
> >>
> > Are these the same compiler versions Rich Lowe used? Maybe there is a
> > compiler optimization bug. Rich Lowe's build readme doesn't tell us which
> > compiler he used.
> > http://genunix.org/dist/richlowe/README.txt
> >
> >> I suppose the easiest way for me to confirm if there is a regression or if
> >> my
> >> compiling is flawed is to just try compiling snv_142 using the same
> >> procedure
> >> and see if it works as well as Rich Lowe's copy or if it's slow like my
> >> other
> >> compilations.
> >>
> >> Chad
> >
> > Another older compilation guide:
> > http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+tools/building_opensolaris
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
