[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: Ruby performance on Windows XP

Austin Ziegler

10/30/2006 5:07:00 PM

On 10/30/06, Dark Ambient <sambient@gmail.com> wrote:
> While I am working in Rails, I'm noticing that Ruby many times completely
> dogs the system
> taking forever to reload a page.
> Reading under task manager I'm seeing that ruby.exe is CPU = 99 and Mem
> Usage = 50,000K
> I'm not sure what to do and have no idea how to debug it.
> There are times it take 5+ minutes to reload a page.

More details would be useful. Raising this on the Rails list would be
even more useful.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halo...
* austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halo...feed/
* austin@zieglers.ca

4 Answers

Gustav - Railist

10/30/2006 5:24:00 PM

0

Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 10/30/06, Dark Ambient <sambient@gmail.com> wrote:
>> While I am working in Rails, I'm noticing that Ruby many times
>> completely
>> dogs the system
>> taking forever to reload a page.
>> Reading under task manager I'm seeing that ruby.exe is CPU = 99 and Mem
>> Usage = 50,000K
>> I'm not sure what to do and have no idea how to debug it.
>> There are times it take 5+ minutes to reload a page.
>
> More details would be useful. Raising this on the Rails list would be
> even more useful.
>
> -austin
Hey,

I've noticed the same problem on my Windows XP installation, so I
switched to Linux (SuSE 10.1) and haven't looked back since!
Posting to the rails list might help, someone there will most likely
have solved it by now...

rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com

Also, I noticed stopping/starting the server seems to help. Not a
solution, but it'll save you that 5+ minutes between page refreshes!

Cheery-o
Gustav Paul
gustav@rails.co.za

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

10/30/2006 10:13:00 PM

0

Dark Ambient wrote:
> I have plans at some point soon to switch over to Linux, possibly Ubuntu.
> Not sure which version. at this point.

What are your criteria for choosing a Linux distro? There's actually a
web site that will walk you through the decision. I've forgotten what it
is, though -- I made my choice a couple of years ago and *then* took the
test. It got the right answer. :)

Seriously, though, Ubuntu is probably the most popular "community
desktop" Linux. If you're more interested in a server, though, CentOS,
Debian stable or Fedora might be a better choice. You'll have to manage
the Ruby and Rails packages yourself -- the "stable" versions are
ancient if they even exist.

If you like learning about Linux and want the latest stable software and
want to have things performance-tuned to your hardware, I can recommend
Gentoo. The Ruby and Rails packages generally show up in Gentoo within a
day or so of release, and with a little prodding, you can file an
enhancement bug in their Bugzilla and get beta stuff in. They have a
fairly complete list of Ruby packages already.

> rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com
>>
>> Also, I noticed stopping/starting the server seems to help. Not a
>> solution, but it'll save you that 5+ minutes between page refreshes!
>
> Yep, that is exactly what I've been doing. This is not production so it's
> acceptable. Annoying but acceptable.

Annoying isn't acceptable in my book. Your most precious resource is
your time! "It isn't production" means it isn't wasting *other peoples'*
time. Get it fixed!

P.S.: I haven't seen anything in *this* thread so far that would tell me
-- someone who does performance engineering for a living -- that your
problem is in fact Windows-related and will go away when you move to
Linux! Sorry, Zed :).

I did run my CPU-bound Ruby Matrix benchmark a couple of days ago on my
dual-booted laptop and there was a significant slowdown from the
Gentoo-optimized (gcc 4.1.1 -O2 -march=athlon-xp) Ruby interpreter on
Gentoo Linux to the One-Click Ruby with Windows XP Professional on the
same hardware.

I think that's going to get fixed when Austin and Curt get the Microsoft
folks and their tool chain playing nice with Ruby. I'll probably have to
go tweaking the Gentoo Ruby to catch up. :)

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

10/31/2006 1:46:00 AM

0

Dark Ambient wrote:
> I'll take a look around for that site. I don't believe I have any
> criteria. I do not perceive a day I'll be hosting my own apps, so the
> server criteria is not important. I guess ease of use,for installing and
> updating Ruby and Rails since that is the primary reason to run Linux.
>
> I had a look over at the Gentoo site after reading this. The screenshots
> showed Gnome. Having played around with a few live cd's recently I guess
> I'm
> leaning towards KDE. I'd assume running it under Gentoo is not a problem.
>
> Stuart
>

Absolutely! In fact, the Gentoo LiveCD is Gnome only because of space
considerations, but the LiveDVD has both. I think your only reasonable
options are Kubuntu (the KDE flavor of Ubuntu) and Gentoo if you want to
stay close to the upstream releases of KDE, Ruby and Rails.

I've never done more than boot one of the early Ubuntu LiveCDs ... I
went down the Gentoo path from Debian before Ubuntu came out, and I'm
too entrenched (and too happy) to consider switching now.

By the way, the whole KDE/Korundum/Kommander/KDevelop/QTRuby/Quanta tool
chain works very well on Gentoo -- if you're willing to lock yourself
into that, you can probably turn out professional applications rather
quickly. The latest version of KDevelop, for example, has some Rails
tools built in.

Another nice thing about Gentoo is that they have a (bleeding edge and
finicky) tool set for building LiveCDs and LiveDVDs. The caution is that
they built that for their own release engineering use and not
necessarily for developers, but it can be made to work with a little effort.

David Vallner

11/2/2006 8:07:00 PM

0

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Absolutely! In fact, the Gentoo LiveCD is Gnome only because of space
> considerations, but the LiveDVD has both. I think your only reasonable
> options are Kubuntu (the KDE flavor of Ubuntu) and Gentoo if you want to
> stay close to the upstream releases of KDE, Ruby and Rails.
>

For the sake of completeness, the only difference between Ubuntu,
Kubuntu, Xubuntu, or Whichevertheheckubuntu is what will show up when
you boot the Live CD, and what the installer will set up by default.
Once running off the repositories, there's no practical difference
between the flavours, and you can swap between flavours by replacing the
*ubuntu-desktop metapackage.

David Vallner