Hi, My bits were originally debug because I didn't know any better. I thought I had then recompiled without debug to test again, but I didn't realize until just now the packages end up in a different directory (nightly vs nightly-nd) so I believe after compiling non-debug I just reinstalled the debug bits. I'm about to test again with an actual non-debug 142, and after that a non-debug 145 which just came out.
Thanks, Chad On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 02:21:51AM -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). > > -- 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
