The only CFLAGS set are '-mtune=niagara' (though I did make an attempt adding -O3 just to see if a difference, there was not). Appears to not be any LDFLAGS set either (CXXFLAGS is null as well).
I am only 60-70% sure I am gathering that information correctly however (looking in the CMakeCache.txt file, and looking at environment variables), I generally don't do a lot of compiling, at least not in the past 8-10 years so I'm a bit rusty. On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Patrick Baggett <baggett.patr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Chris, would you mind posting your C/CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS? > > Patrick > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Chris Lawrence <ch...@nrsys.org> wrote: >> >> Greetings: >> >> Based on some of the discussion so far in this thread >> (which thank you all by the way for your input!) has led me down some >> holes I was afraid to go down (building from source). I'm not averse >> to it for technical reasons, just.. its a time consumer. :) In any case >> I did run some tests on the box, building MySQL from source with a >> variety of -mtune attempts (niagara, niagara2/3, etc), and >> interestingly enough all of those attempts yielded a system that >> actually was _slower_ than the 'stock' binaries distributed with >> Debian SPARC (Wheezy). >> >> I am currently attempting a MariaDB build on the machine, but have >> been running into some compile-time errors (I'm not very experienced >> in porting to different architectures), as I was unable to find any >> binaries of MariaDB (hoping its claims of faster/better would apply >> here). >> >> I'll drop a reply if I ever get Maria built and see a difference. >> Thanks again for all the input, much appreciated! >> >> Regards, >> >> Chris >> >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Rainer Herbst >> <rainer.her...@uni-potsdam.de> wrote: >> > Single thread performance of the T2000 is definatly lower than of x86 >> > hardware, but a factor of 30 is to high. I would have expected factor >> > 3-4, >> > maybe 10. >> > >> > We use a T2000 for LDAP and MySQL server in Solaris 10 LDOMs, and the >> > system >> > perform reasonably well. >> > >> > >> > >> > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, >> > >> > Rainer Herbst >> > Zentrale Einrichtung für Informations- >> > verarbeitung und Kommunikation (ZEIK) >> > Universität Potsdam >> > Am Neuen Palais 10, Haus 8, Zimmer 0.70a >> > 14469 Potsdam >> > Tel. 0331 - 977 1039 >> > >> > >> > Quoting Patrick Baggett <baggett.patr...@gmail.com>: >> > >> >> Just from reading others' questions and answers over the web, I >> >> wouldn't >> >> be >> >> surprised if that was the case, especially if you are doing anything >> >> that >> >> needs an FPU in there. Also IIRC, they are in-order CPUs, which means >> >> having proper compiler flags will make a difference. Stock MySQL from >> >> Debian probably doesn't have any special flags applied, whereas you'd >> >> probably want "-mtune=niagara". >> >> >> >> I'm interested in finding out the answer as well -- I've considering >> >> picking up a used T2-based, which has similar characteristics, since >> >> they >> >> are down to a few hundred dollars. >> >> >> >> Patrick >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Chris Lawrence <ch...@nrsys.org> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Greetings: >> >>> >> >>> I have been gifted a Sun T2000 from my employer as a hand-me-down >> >>> piece of hardware. I have had plenty of experience using it as a >> >>> Solaris 10 box, and we generally ran Oracle and our in-house products >> >>> on the hardware with good results. >> >>> >> >>> After getting the hardware, without a Sun contract I went with Debian, >> >>> which was fine as my expertise/background is more heavily Linux than >> >>> Solaris anyways. >> >>> >> >>> After a lot of tinkering I got the system as I liked it, prepared to >> >>> host several LXC containers, separated as database and web servers for >> >>> a project for my friend's gaming website. All went well, until I >> >>> started working with MySQL. I started noticing significant >> >>> differences in performance, and, I went down the rabbit hole to find >> >>> plenty of articles talking about how MySQL doesn't run well on The >> >>> T2000's due to single threadedness sort of reasons. >> >>> >> >>> I've done a good amount of fine tuning of the database, but I'm >> >>> finding any query of complexity taking sometimes as much as 30x longer >> >>> to execute than on same-era x86 hardware running Debian. >> >>> >> >>> I am really just trying to figure out if I'm wasting my time by trying >> >>> to 'fix' this, or if its a reality of the hardware platform. Even >> >>> simple 'select BENCHMARK' queries are returning back after 25-30 >> >>> seconds, whereas on the x86 box it comes back in 1-2 seconds. >> >>> >> >>> Is MySQL on this hardware platform a lost cause, or am I missing >> >>> something obvious? >> >>> >> >>> Thanks in advance! >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> >> >>> Chris >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org >> >>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact >> >>> listmas...@lists.debian.org >> >>> Archive: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://lists.debian.org/caouezgjvmyjpmpowtpjvafmpy0uneext3pctwxypanapdlv...@mail.gmail.com >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org >> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact >> listmas...@lists.debian.org >> Archive: >> http://lists.debian.org/caouezgkkvfeo_6wocjhmtwt0nots3hhq-bpjkdzmvfmvqtg...@mail.gmail.com >> > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOUEZgKSVD65q8tN7wgQQmQUHXLYkWsfANg+xnT06Ev+Áq...@mail.gmail.com