On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:25:54AM +0300, Eugene Sanivsky wrote: > I am experiencing serious performance regression with new armel > libc/compiler.
> I see up to 45% degradation in Samba throughput for example. Samba is a very complex piece of software, and you have changed every single component related to it except the kernel. Do you have any less complex banchmarks? > Same Samba versions used for benchmarking (3.0.25b). Did you compile samba with same options both times? > Any ideas why? Since I have not been blessed with gift of prescience, I only have some guesses. Samba should not be cpu or integer calculation -bound, but rather io-bound. In fact, samba should just use sendfile() to page data out. Thus it would seem unlikely a compiler issue. I'd guess: - Samba ended up compiled/configured with different options. The default samba in debian comes out with almost everything enabled by default. - Somehow cache ends up being used completly inefficently. If your platform supports oprofile, it could help tracing this issue. - There is something wrong with the nptl code in glibc2.5. > Actions? Try to find a more isolated test case or a synthetic benchmark to reproduce the issue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
