Slashdot Mirror


Solaris DTrace To Be Ported to FreeBSD

daria42 writes "It looks like Sun's famous Dynamic Tracing tool - one of the best features in Solaris 10 - is getting ported to FreeBSD. Sun open-sourced the code back in January and it has been picked up by FreeBSD developer Devon O'Dell. The tool provides insanely great advanced performance analysis and debugging features for server software. Good to see some result come out of the Sun open-sourcing process." From the article: "O'Dell told ZDNet Australia the aim of the project -- which commenced a month ago -- was that all scripts and applications that utilised DTrace under its native Solaris environment should be able to run in FreeBSD with no changes. While FreeBSD's existing ktrace function was similar to DTrace, it was limited in scope, according to O'Dell. 'FreeBSD implements a somewhat similar facility for dynamically instrumenting syscalls for any given application,' he said."

40 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. License? by rpbailey1642 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article doesn't say whether the program will be released under the BSD license (unlikely) or whether it will remain under the CDDL. The latter seems most likely.

    1. Re:License? by jonadab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would this occasion a license change? It's a *port*, as in, the code will now run on more systems than it used to. Licensing doesn't have anything to do with that; it's still fundamentally the same codebase, so I'm sure the code will still be covered by the same licensing terms it already was released under.

      To create a BSD-licensed version, someone would have to *clone* it, which is different from porting.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    2. Re:License? by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My guess is that any kernel changes will go into the FreeBSD base under the BSD license, and the DTrace tool itself will keep its current license and will be installed from the ports collection.

      Also, I don't think FreeBSD is committed to removing all non-BSD code.

      --
      You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
    3. Re:License? by dodell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that what will end up happening is this:

      Modifications I need to make to already BSD licensed code will remain BSD licensed. New pieces of code I write to get it working that are not taken from Sun will be BSD licensed. Everything else will be porting work and will be CDDL.

  2. Good for Ruby! by fishdan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    OOOH! Someone please tell me that the OSX port is close behind. I'd been living on a mac for quite a while, but after seeing the how dtrace can help with Ruby dev I'd switched to Solaris for my Ruby optimization (which is up to about 30% of my work now). If I can start doing this on my powerbook, I'll be a super happy camper.

    I'm not sure how this benefits Sun, but something as awesome as this, I'm willing to assume it's altruism, and I appreciate it.

    --
    Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
    1. Re:Good for Ruby! by TheTomcat · · Score: 4, Informative

      There have been bindings for PHP for a few days, now.

      S

    2. Re:Good for Ruby! by jm91509 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure how this benefits Sun, but something as awesome as this, I'm willing to assume it's altruism, and I appreciate it.

      Thats easy. You used to be a Mac only person (making some guesses here...) but now you are a Solaris user.

      How many other people are trying solaris for the first time because of this feature?

      Suck in the developers and they may turn into server sales or even just positive PR.

      Sounds like more than altruisim to me.

    3. Re:Good for Ruby! by laffer1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well the kernel's are different as someone else pointed out, but there is a powerpc port of FreeBSD in the works. That means you can dual boot your Mac with FreeBSD and OS X. It would be easier than switching to Sun since you don't have to buy new hardware.

      I should point out that the PowerPC port is not tier 1 yet so its not perfect. I know there have been a few problems with X11 and keyboards on laptops that use ADB protocol are broken (all ibooks for example) I think some powerbook models use USB so you might be ok there.

      There is a freebsd-ppc mailing list. If you look at the archives you can learn more about it. They just released an iso of 6.0 beta 3 or 4 for it. :)

    4. Re:Good for Ruby! by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You used to be a Mac only person (making some guesses here...) but now you are a Solaris user.

      No, I think he's talking about Sun making dtrace open source, which might turn him into a FreeBSD user, or perhaps allow him to use OS X exclusively (not likely with the kernel changes needed, but maybe Apple will see the light.)

      So, sacrificing your value-added product to the public domain seems to be entirely altruistic AFAICT. With something like NFS, they stood to gain directly by allowing others to use it, but that doesn't appear to be the case with dtrace.

      Perhaps it's not altruism. Perhaps it's an attempt to improve all Unix systems, to get people to switch away from Windows. That would be very benefitial to Sun.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  3. When will it be available in Linux ? by UltimaGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have seen the use of this tool, and seriously, it rocks. There is no other tracing tool to compare with this. So, I am very eager to hear any news about this being ported to Linux, as not many people use FreeBSD ;-)

    --
    "In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
    1. Re:When will it be available in Linux ? by brilinux · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Um, actually, quite a few people (myself included) use it on servers (and I use it on my laptop as well), and most of us are quite happy about this, and get quite upset when people blow us off as if the only real F/OS OS to use is GNU/Linux. You might actually like a BSD if you try it...

    2. Re:When will it be available in Linux ? by tsalaroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd be willing to bet there's a shitload of FreeBSD web servers out there, since I manage twelve of them, myself.

      Linux has its uses and is great for many tasks, but only Gentoo comes close to the ports system and how well it manages software installation.

      Either way, I'm hoping that yes, it will be ported to Linux as well, if it hasn't been already.

    3. Re:When will it be available in Linux ? by Zedrick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      as not many people use FreeBSD ;-)

      ...and that's their loss. I think that 75% of those who give FreeBSD a (serious) try will stick to it. It's the best thing since Amiga OS, and I'm happy to run it both on my desktop, and for my router+web/ftp-server in the wardrobe.

    4. Re:When will it be available in Linux ? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Linux does have a "comparable" feature (soon to be merged in mainline) called "kprobes", or "systemtap" (systemtap uses kprobes)

      You can see a fairly detailed analisis in the 2005 Proceedings, Volume 2, page 57 of the linux symposium

      Also some doc from IBM: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/librar y/l-kprobes.html

      also there's a "linux trace toolkit". A post about LTT vs dtrace...whatever, too much flamewar for my taste.

    5. Re:When will it be available in Linux ? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 2, Informative
    6. Re:When will it be available in Linux ? by freshman_a · · Score: 3, Informative


      Yes, there is: SystemTap by Red Hat, IBM and Intel.

      Perhaps you should read

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solarisx86/message/2 7818

      and

      http://milek.blogspot.com/2005/08/linux-and-solari s.html

      Two discussions on some differences between SystemTap and Dtrace. (And yes, both links are in favor of Dtrace, and for good reason it appears.)

    7. Re:When will it be available in Linux ? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've been spoiled by GNU extensions to tools like grep and ls. Considering I spend most of my time in a command line (under a GNOME terminal, no less), I'd probably find myself frequently irritated.

      That said, I have downloaded the FreesBIE LiveCD; I just haven't burned it yet.

    8. Re:When will it be available in Linux ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      kprobes is not comparable to dtrace, to see a comparison between dtrace and kprobes check out
      dtrace vs. krpobes

      systemtap is in its infancy and being designed without safety as a priority, dtrace was created to be 100% safe to run anytime, even in production. systemtap is being made for the kernel hacker to debug the kernel. With possibly some userland probes and safety as an after thought. Sure they talk about safety as a goal. But as documented dtrace_usenix.pdf
      dtrace was created from the start to be safe and secure. They even sacrafice some functionality to keep production servers safe. Systemtap is like building a bank they build the building, bring in the money, and desks, and machines, and promise that top of the line doors, windows and safe will top of the line and installed any day now.

    9. Re:When will it be available in Linux ? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually crux is closer to ports, and slackware + pkg-src is basically the same thing.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    10. Re:When will it be available in Linux ? by ahl_at_sun · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not a Solaris developer (though I am) -- it's a customer who's been using DTrace for quite a while. He actually knows what he's talking about.

    11. Re:When will it be available in Linux ? by halber_mensch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is there any reason why I shouldn't look at FBSD as if it were a flavor of Linux? Yeah, it has a different kernel. I guess FBSD might be a little faster? That is what the benchmarks say, but the difference isn't staggering. I certainly don't notice. Is it more stable? I haven't had many problems with Linux that couldn't be blamed on cheap PC hardware.

      Yes, a very important reason - FreeBSD is not Linux, just as surely as SCO UnixWare is not Solaris. Their codebase is certainly not the same, and in fact FreeBSD's code lineage dates back many years before Linux.

      FreeBSD and Linux, being F/OSS systems, share a very large base of F/OSS software, so looking at kde on X on FreeBSD really won't appear that different from looking at kde on X on linux. I could just as well ask why anyone would want to use Linux when it just looks like a derivative of FreeBSD, which predates it. but that would not be a fair assessment because Linux is a seperate work built by another party. Yes, it is a unix-like system. Yes, it strives to adhere to POSIX standards. Yes, it runs all the same software. But no, it is a different system.

      I have been using FreeBSD and NetBSD for many years, and where I work all of our stuff is on SuSE. In my opinion, SuSE is impossible to upgrade, its package system is inadequate, and shorewall is a lousy attempt at ip filtering. If I had my way I'd probably replace everything with FreeBSD. But did you notice somehting about the attitude of my opinions? Wasn't your first thought "Well gee, you use FreeBSD all the time and you've probably barely given SuSE Linux a shot?" If it was, you would be right. Because I learned to accomplish tasks in FreeBSD, I favor it - the same way I favor speaking in english over german because english is my native language. I'm sure if you sit down and think about it, when you picked up FreeBSD you tried to do things in the Debian idiom, expecting Debian results. But you didn't get them. So you're underwhelmed. It's natural, but please don't try to attribute it to FreeBSD being an inadequate copy of your favorite system, because that simply is a lie.

      On the packages/ports system, I think you've really overdramaticized your plight with the BSD way-of-doing-things. First, you can cvsup the ports tree and compile from source. But you can also use pkg_add to add binary packages. If you don't want to fetch the package tarball yourself, you can use pkg_add's remote fetching feature. Simply pkg_add -r and you're on your way. It will take care of dependencies and the package database will record the package's information. You can also install portupgrade and use it to magically update a port and its dependencies when it is time to upgrade. It's not a difficult or time consuming system to use. I'm unfamiliar with Debian's package system, so I can't make any comments on it, but FreeBSD's package system has always been very useful fo me, and it gets more powerful all the time.

      Overall, though, Linux and BSD really do feed from eachother's growth. What's good for one is good for the other. I may use FreeBSD, but that doesn't mean Linux is useless; and the opposite is true as well. All this bickering is really pointless because both projects will continue on in their own directions; some people will favor the one while some people will favor the other. It's simply a matter of preference

      --
      perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
    12. Re:When will it be available in Linux ? by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Informative
      Every time I tried doing a 'make package', it went through all of the dependencies and did a 'make install' on them, which did me exactly 0 good, as I wanted them in package format for installation on another system.

      make package-recursive

  4. Tons of links in the article by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It looks like a really useful tool. I wonder what the performance penalty is when the tool is turned off.

    Do you need to instrument the calls you expect to profile? If so, how can you avoid taking that performance hit when deciding whether to perform the profiling or not, even when the profiler is off? It's still got to check the profiler level each time, doesn't it?

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:Tons of links in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no overhead when off or need to pre-instrument points to be traced. Dtrace dynamically inserts a probe point into the code path wherever you want it, typically at a function entry/exit point.
      The overhead when in use is low enough that you can turn on a blanket Dtrace of all functions in the kernel without killing the OS. If you target your trace points sensibly the overhead is low enough that its not an issue. Its designed to be safe to use, so the Dtrace scripts that do in-kernel filtering can't do anything bad.

  5. Linux had this for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    This has been working on Linux sometime in 2004

    The official reason is that it wasn't release was because Linus didn't want the BSD folks using it, but the real reason is the Department of Homeland security didn't want the BSD folk to find the last bug in their release.

    Thats what I just head right now. (Thanks, voices)

    1. Re:Linux had this for ages by Hackeron · · Score: 5, Informative

      if you're referring to http://oprofile.sourceforge.net/news/, you're sadly mistaken. Realtime system profiling is very far behind on Linux compared to Solaris.

      Can you monitor how much network bandwidth each process uses? -- Sure you can see listening ports and IP traffic, and ntop is fantastic at showing what network bandwidth is used for (i.e. spotting p2p and IM traffic, eg). However if you have a trojen and you see suspecious network activity, there is a certain amount of guess work to try to find the process. Solaris will show exactly what process is making what connection where and the bandwidth it is using.

      Can you monitor how much IO utilization each process has? -- No, only IO wait and CPU consumption which is normally enough, but say you have a script thats just reading all content on the disk and redirects it to /dev/null - Sure you'll see abount 1% cpu utilization, but again, guess work at whats actually using IO.

      Sure you're usually right making an educated guess but system profiling is far ahead on Solaris.

  6. Re:Insanely great by Elrac · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've seen it before, fairly often. Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but still - commonly used.

    Google shows 229,000 hits for "insanely great" (as a phrase).

    Welcome to, umm, Geek English!

    --
    When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
  7. Wikipedia:DTrace by Saiyine · · Score: 5, Informative


    For we that don't have a clue what DTrace is, here's what the has to say: DTrace allows to do performance tuning with applications and troubleshoot production systems--all with little or no performance impact. DTrace provides improved visibility into kernel and application activity, giving the user operational insights with which they can make performance gains..

    The no performance penalty sounds really cool to me.

    --
    Superb hosting 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, $7,95.
    Picaday! Soon to be open "Picture of the day web".

    --
    Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
    1. Re:Wikipedia:DTrace by davecb · · Score: 3, Informative
      It's way more fine-grained than truss or apptrace (which I helped build), and has overhead only when used.

      --dave

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    2. Re:Wikipedia:DTrace by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 3, Informative

      truss/strace is a syscall tracer. Anything in your app that makes a syscall gets it's arguments and return values logged. ltrace adds the ability to do the same with dynamic library calls.

      dtrace is much different, you have areas of your kernel that have probes, places that accumulate data. dtrace is a language where you can read these probe areas (including the syscall interface) and print them out to user level and figure out whats going on (wrong) in your kernel.

      For the people who say Sun isn't real about open source, they should realize this is a differentiating technology, years ahead of what anything in Linux/bsd or commercial linuxes have. If it's going into the BSD kernel, it's probably also BSD licensed, meaning all UNIXes can take this.

  8. Re:Insanely great by dylan_- · · Score: 5, Informative


    "insanely great" is well known. In fact, it's in the Jargon File

    --
    Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
  9. FreeBSD really needs this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    FreeBSD performance has generally been declining with each subsequent release in recent years. No one seems to be able to get to the bottom of the problem. It could be the effects of FreeBSD suffering from "creeping featuritis" combined with a bit of bloat.

    A tool like this could really aid in finding all the bottlenecks. Benchmarks have become an embarrassment for FreeBSD as of late, and it is really sad to see that FreeBSD has fallen so far behind. Hopefully this could start to turn things around.

    1. Re:FreeBSD really needs this by dodell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While this has been moderated as -1, Troll, it is somewhat true. There have been various performance regressions, which are to be seen in performance tests benchmarking I/O between FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x. Some of the problems are difficult to find and analyze. I'm sorry that this was moderated as a troll, since it is partially a valid point. And DTrace is a great tool to help figure out precisely what is going on.

    2. Re:FreeBSD really needs this by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the point of the moderation of the parent had to due with being offtopic with Drace in order to trash FBSD and cause a flamewar.

      I do agree with the parent poster as well since the threading and the code quality has made many old FBSD timers leave and work on Dragonfly. I no longer run FBSD as a result.

      But I wold mod the parent down for the that reason. However I would mod him up if it was a general FBSD post about i/o or BSD vs Linux story.

  10. this is great by mendicant_zero_x · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems like everywhere I look I've heard comments about how great DTrace is, so to see it ported to FreeBSD really makes me happy. I do have a couple of questions about it though, simply going in line with the announcements over the last couple days.

    1) Considering the fact that we are currently going through the Beta's for FreeBSD 6, I am curious how, if at all, a fully implemented DTrace would help the devs with tracking down and solving the current beta problems. From my current understanding, it seems that it could be a great help with tracking down and solving the current show-stoppers. Can someone clarify this for me?

    2) I have also read an article somewhere where a DTrace dev showed how easy it was to track down a memory leak in a small program. With Gnome currently going on a memory reduction kick, would a fully featured DTrace be able to help with finding these memory problems? I realize that comparing Gnome with a small application is ridiculous so I can't expect it to magically find these problems in just a few minutes, but could it help? Also, if DTrace helped to find these problems on versions ported to FreeBSD, would they easily be ported back into the main linux-based version of Gnome?

    Any feedback would be appreciated because from what (admittedly little) I've read, it seems that DTrace could help on these fronts, but I'm really not 100% sure that it would.

    --
    "You look so different now, but looks can be deceiving." -- Snuff
    1. Re:this is great by dodell · · Score: 4, Informative

      On 1):

      Quite a lot, actually. I've talked with Eric Schrock about his thesis work, which was implementing some lock analysis tools using DTrace. This allowed him to detect (very precisely) things like LORs, deadlocks, and the like. His thesis is available at http://www.cs.brown.edu/publications/theses/ugrad/ 2003/eschrock.pdf

      On 2):

      When I've seen demonstrations on this stuff, it has been Bryan Cantrill doing fun stuff with libumem, mdb, and DTrace. I suspect that, at the minimum, we'd need libumem to find and fix this stuff with the accuracy that it can be done in Solaris.

      Hope this is useful information.

      --Devon

  11. Clear up a few things by dodell · · Score: 5, Informative

    As the guy porting DTrace, I want to clear up a few questions that appear frequently in the comments here. First, though, please be kind to the blog -- it's hosted on our (OffMyServer's) network, which is on a T1. I dunno how bad it got when the story was posted, but just for reference, it'd be nice to not have our network connection die.

    FAQ #1 seems to be about the license. Obviously, the CDDL is `viral' in the sense that changes in the code need to be provided under the same terms of the CDDL. In my understanding, this applies only to files in which modifications take place. Extension of something CDDL by adding extra files seems to not require those files to be released under the CDDL. That said, this is a porting effort, and most of the changes I will make will be inside CDDL-licensed files. Thus, anything imported will be under the CDDL. This does not require anything external files to be under the CDDL and thus it can be shipped with FreeBSD without `infecting' other files.

    FAQ #2 seems to be whether Sun is happy about this or not. If you have read the article, you would have seen that I've been encouraged to work on this by Sun kernel engineers. Whether Sun as a whole is happy about this is not known to me, but everybody involved in getting it this far has been, so I'm not terribly worried about the rest.

    FAQ #3 is about performance incurrences. Certain aspects of DTrace incur performance penalties, but only when DTrace is running. DTrace by itself is a library and a userland tool. All instrumentation is done dynamically and when DTrace is not instrumenting something, no performance hits happen whatsoever. When it is running, we have several advantages to other tools because (unlike e.g. truss) we are instrumenting single processes. Processes which are not being instrumented will not take any performance hits other than the fact that they have a bit less CPU usage since DTrace is instrumenting something.

    How do you not take a performance penalty when the profiler is off? You must be root to run DTrace. When you instrument functions inside an application, this is done on-the-fly by rewriting the code that is being executed. When it is not being executed, nothing is being rewritten and it's not even looking to rewrite something. It's just some code resident in memory (in fact, modules are even loaded as needed). It sounds like it might be prone to security flaws, but keep in mind that this has been working in production for a while now.

    When will this be in Linux? I don't know. I won't be working on it. I challenge _you_ to do this :)

    Is this vaporware? No. I'm continuing development from about a week off (since I lost my development machine) this evening.

    Feel free to ask more questions, I'll try to address them as I see them. But please refrain from bad-mouthing Sun or myself out of spite, jealousy, or whatever. I know it's fun to troll (if you're a troll), but the rest of us really don't appreciate it.

    --Devon

    1. Re:Clear up a few things by dodell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, sure, but for the port you will, since we don't have that sort of privilege assignment and I don't want to initially implement that kind of process accounting.

      Yes, I am planning on implementing every provider I can.

    2. Re:Clear up a few things by dodell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Only if people are unable to recognize the functionality of DTrace far outweighs licensing issues. Many Linux branches are maintained, and I don't see why somebody couldn't bite the bullet and maintain another Linux branch with DTrace. I think that licensing is secondary. The kernel parts would never be shipped with Linux anyway since they rely on userland tools for functionality, and this is not what Linux is.

      No, the real difficulty here is that Linux is by itself only a kernel. Getting this integrated into a full operating system is hard because you have to work with varying userland utilities and make sure that it's integrated properly. I'd expect that somebody would probably do it in Debian, Gentoo, Redhat, or another distribution. In FreeBSD, this is easier, because you are working with an entire system that you know exists and is going to be available for use. You know exactly what will and will not be there.

      Integrating it into Linux might thus be a bigger challenge than doing so in FreeBSD (or any other BSD, for that matter). But if somebody were to choose a distribution and JUST GET IT DONE (this is the key), I'm sure others would pick it up.

    3. Re:Clear up a few things by vga_init · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think that licensing is secondary.

      Certainly, licensing should be a primary issue. Before one does anything with a program, there needs to be an answer to the questions, "Who does it belong to? What am I allowed to do with it?" At the very least, those questions ought to be answered "Mine," and "Whatever I want." Ideally, it should be answered, "Ours, and we want." If it doesn't belong to you and you can't do certain things with it, you can only get by ignoring this for so long until it becomes a major issue.

      The GNU system exists because of free software; linux is what it is today because of free software. Licensing becomes an issue when the software doesn't belong to you and you don't have the freedom to do stuff with it.

      Your stance seems to contradict your "use what works best!" mentality. When there is a licensing issue, the water may be calm at the moment, but in the future some IP owner could potentially destroy your project or deny your use. Do you really want that to happen? You won't think it's so usable when your project is taken away from you (and this can happen in more ways than one).

      On a side note, I totally agree with you that FreeBSD is an easier target than linux. linux is more fragmented than FreeBSD (and don't get me wrong, this is a strength in many aspects, but it does make broad system changes more difficult).