openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: I created a variant of the go runtime that is faster at init time
Date Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:58:19 GMT
Let’s stick with the 1.11 stock compiler, produces greater portability abs
allows us to make updates to the base linux image with low risk for braking
an exec built previously

Not worth for the init, in general a busy app doesn’t suffer a lot of cold
start and on the flip side a infrequent app can leverage stemcell a/prewarm

I think if you want to investigate maybe opening an issue or start
discussion with go community on how the compiler can be improve if if their
flags that we are not using to optimized the binary

— Carlos


On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:46 AM David P Grove <groved@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> Sorry.
>
> I mean do not bother providing a gccgo variant of the go runtime.  Stick
> with the official golang compiler at 1.11.   I don't see the small speedup
> in init time as being enough to justify supporting two variants of go
> actions.
>
> --dave
>
>
> Michele Sciabarra <michele@sciabarra.com> wrote on 12/11/2018 10:37:56 AM:
>
> > From: Michele Sciabarra <michele@sciabarra.com>
> > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> > Date: 12/11/2018 10:38 AM
> > Subject: Re: I created a variant of the go runtime that is faster atinit
> time
> >
> > Sorry not sure what you mean. Do you suggest I apply the change to use
> > gccgo in the official runtime, even if it is stuck at go 1.10 (the
> > latest is go 1.11) or I drop the idea of providing another runtime that
> > is faster to initialize? Would not be better to release both a gccgo
> > 1.10 and a golang 1.11 instead so I leave the choice to users? The first
> > produces smaller binaries but it is a bit slower and it is stuck to go
> > 1.10, the second is faster but it is slower to initialize because the
> > executable is bigger.--
> >   Michele Sciabarra
> >   michele@sciabarra.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original message -----
> > From: David P Grove <groved@us.ibm.com>
> > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: I created a variant of the go runtime that is faster at
> > init timeDate: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:17:51 -0500
> >
> > Michele Sciabarra <michele@sciabarra.com> wrote on 12/11/2018
> > 07:23:14 AM:>
> > > Then I created a variant of the go runtime, using GccGo.  GccGo is a
> > > Go compiler, updated to Go version 1.10, that compiles using the Gcc
> > > compiler infrastructure. As a result, it produces dynamically linked
> > > executables that are smaller than the binaries produced by the
> > > standard Go compiler.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > GccGo is a bit slower than Go (but it is still the second faster
> > > runtime) but it is now the faster at init time because the
> > > executable is around 50k (and zipped it is only 17k).
> > >
> > > I am unsure if replace GccGo in the official runtime or provide
> > > both. The fact that the executable is small so it leads to faster
> > > init time I think it is important, but the  GccGo compiler it is a
> > > bit behind in term of language support.
> > >
> >
> > My advice is to stick with the official runtime.  I think that is
> > betterfor end users.
> >
> > --dave
> >
>
-- 
Carlos Santana
<csantana23@gmail.com>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message