[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150313195827.GN23507@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:58:27 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl 14x slower?
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 03:53:20PM -0400, John Mudd wrote:
> Please cc me on replies.
>
> I built Postgres with musl. I used version 1.1.0. That works well and I've
> been distributing musl Postgres in production.
>
> I still have an install running a previous build using standard libc from
> and old 2.4 kernel build. The "native" build runs 14x faster. And this is
> not trying to do anything fancy, just sequentially reading records from a
> 400 MB Postgres table.
>
> native: 0:25
> musl: 5:42
>
> I know my musl version is dated but is this slow performance to be expected?
No. Is it possible that you built musl and/or the musl-linked
postgresql with -O0? I would suggest using perf(1) to measure where
all the additional time is being spent.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
