From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/7187 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl 14x slower? Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:58:27 -0400 Message-ID: <20150313195827.GN23507@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1426276723 19084 80.91.229.3 (13 Mar 2015 19:58:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 19:58:43 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-7200-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Mar 13 20:58:43 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YWVjG-0001g6-7E for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:58:42 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 11524 invoked by uid 550); 13 Mar 2015 19:58:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 11495 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2015 19:58:39 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:7187 Archived-At: 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