[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: [ANN] Eventmachine 0.8.0 released with epoll, breaks Ruby file-descriptor limit

Tim Pease

7/12/2007 3:06:00 AM

On 7/11/07, Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Eventmachine team is pleased to announce the release of version 0.8.0,
> available now on RubyForge as a tarball and as a gem.
>
> Eventmachine is a framework for writing fast, scalable network-aware
> programs (clients, servers, or both) in Ruby or C/C++, without requiring the
> use of threads. EM is used today in a variety of production systems
> including Web, mail, and LDAP/RADIUS servers, SNMP agents, and custom
> protocol handlers. It's also used in Kirk Haines's Swiftiply, a fast
> clustering proxy for Rails and other web frameworks.
>
> The 0.8.0 release adds automatic support for epoll, on Linux 2.6 kernels.
> This enables Eventmachine programs to break through Ruby's limit of 1024
> file and socket descriptors per process. In performance tests designed to
> simulate busy web servers, Eventmachine with epoll exhibits the behavior you
> would expect: with very large numbers (>20,000) of quiet connections and a
> few active ones, there is no noticeable degradation of responsiveness or
> total throughput, compared to cases with only a few connections.
>
> We expect the next major EM release to be called 0.9.0. It will add
> Erlang-like features intended to make it simple for EM-based programs to
> send messages to each other, or to other processes. A typical use case for
> this capability is a "service" web site that must make calls to other web
> sites, web services, or other network services in order to fulfill requests
> from its own clients.
>
> Thanks to all for your support of the EM project, and especially to Tony
> Arcieri, who tirelessly bugged me for weeks to add the epoll support, and to
> Kirk for helping to shake it out.
>

Just tried to compile EventMachine on a SPARC Solaris box here at
work. g++ does not like the compiler flags that are meant for the
SUNWspro compilers :/

We are using the Blastwave packages for our Ruby install. That package
was compiled using the SUNWspro compilers, and so extconf.rb is
grabbing the CFLAGS from there. -KPIC makes g++ very unhappy.

I wish I was writing to say I have a patch for you, but that is not the case.

Any pointers from rubyland on how to get the correct CFLAGS into extconf.rb?

CONFIG["CFLAGS"] = " -O2 -fPIC" # <-- doesn't seem to do the trick

I always end up with the CFLAGS meant for the SUNWspro compiler.

Blessings,
TwP
14 Answers

Luc Heinrich

7/12/2007 8:34:00 AM

0

On 12 juil. 07, at 05:06, Tim Pease wrote:

> Any pointers from rubyland on how to get the correct CFLAGS into
> extconf.rb?

$CFLAGS = " -O2 -fPIC"

--
Luc Heinrich

Tim Pease

7/12/2007 2:40:00 PM

0

On 7/12/07, Luc Heinrich <luc@honk-honk.com> wrote:
> On 12 juil. 07, at 05:06, Tim Pease wrote:
>
> > Any pointers from rubyland on how to get the correct CFLAGS into
> > extconf.rb?
>
> $CFLAGS = " -O2 -fPIC"
>

Thanks. That did the trick. Now on to the other compilation problems.

TwP

Tim Pease

7/12/2007 3:34:00 PM

0

On 7/12/07, Tim Pease <tim.pease@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/12/07, Luc Heinrich <luc@honk-honk.com> wrote:
> > On 12 juil. 07, at 05:06, Tim Pease wrote:
> >
> > > Any pointers from rubyland on how to get the correct CFLAGS into
> > > extconf.rb?
> >
> > $CFLAGS = " -O2 -fPIC"
> >
>
> Thanks. That did the trick. Now on to the other compilation problems.
>

Fixed the compilation errors on Solaris. I filed a bug with project's
bug tracker, and attached a patch file.

http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=12228&group_id=1555&...

Blessings,
TwP

Ernst Blofeld

12/8/2010 8:31:00 AM

0

> > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerint...

has some discussion with an noted academic on sea level changes. I
don't think you'd get the same level of disputes about evolution from
a noted biologist.

--
Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the
coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by
satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a
straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolute- ly no
trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but
then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend,
and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s]
publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it
changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year,
the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It
looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t
recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly
twisted up, because they entered a “correc- tion factor,” which they
took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a
figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the
Academy of Sciences in Mos- cow—I said you have introduced factors
from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured
from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they
answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have
got- ten any trend!

That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the
data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to
the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching
for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are
computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is
rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from
observations. The observations don’t find it!

I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last
year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally sur- prised.
First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none—were
sea-level specialists. They were given this mis- sion, because they
promised to answer the right thing. Again, it was a computer issue.
This is the typical thing: The metereo- logical community works with
computers, simple computers. Geologists don’t do that! We go out in
the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with
computerization; but it’s not the first thing.
--

Rick Saunders

12/8/2010 1:08:00 PM

0

On Dec 8, 2:18 am, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:

> > Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.  
>
> And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>
> > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>
> Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
> N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>
> Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
> data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
> models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.

In fact, I'm unaware of any climate models that can accurately
'predict'
the weather of the past several years.... or months.
-----
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/all-16-climate-models-fail...

Maine has shown no temperature trend for the entire NCDC record,
even including their recent upwards adjustments. Summer temperatures
have declined significantly over the last 80 years.
-----
http://climatesci.org/2008/07/31/on-the-credibility-of-climate-predictions-by-koutsoyian...

At the annual and the climatic (30-year) scales, GCM
interpolated series are irrelevant to reality...The huge
negative values of coefficients of efficiency show that model
predictions are much poorer than an elementary prediction based
on the time average. This makes future climate projections at
the examined locations not credible. Whether or not this
conclusion extends to other locations requires expansion of the
study, which we have planned. However, the poor GCM performance
in all eight locations examined in this study allows little
hope, if any. An argument that the poor performance applies
merely to the point basis of our comparison, whereas aggregation
at large spatial scales would show that GCM outputs are
credible, is an unproved conjecture and, in our opinion, a false
one.
-----

Rick Saunders

12/8/2010 1:11:00 PM

0

On Dec 8, 2:45 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Ernst Blofeld  <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
> >> Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
>
> >And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>
> We don't need models.  Actual effects are being observed.

"Science by anecdote" isn't science, Ray. Didn't you
learn anything in school?

> And it
> doesn't take modelling to know that rising sea levels will have an
> adverse impact on coastal cities.

That's a local fallacy known as "petitio principii." You're simply
assuming that the conclusion is true without presenting any
evidence for that conclusion. And that's what is wrong with
the AGW scam.


you're assuming your argument is true

chris holt

12/8/2010 3:09:00 PM

0

On Dec 8, 7:18 am, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.  
>
> And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.

What about all the other evidence? Measured melting of ice,
measured increases in global temperature, measured migration
of flora and fauna?
>
> > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>
> Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
> N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>
> Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
> data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
> models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.

And yet they all produce roughly similar results, and the main
errors in their predictions have been that they underestimated
the changes that have been observed over the past five years.
If I predict that a 12-year-old is likely to grow by 2 inches in the
next year or so, and he grows by 3 inches, are you going to
dismiss the entire model of growing on the grounds that I didn't
pin the number down precisely? Because that's what people
are doing with global warming models.

ahall

12/9/2010 12:58:00 AM

0

Rick Saunders <retro_lad@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Dec 8, 2:18?am, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 8:16?pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
>> > Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far. ?
>>
>> And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>>
>> > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>>
>> Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
>> N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>>
>> Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
>> data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
>> models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.
>
> In fact, I'm unaware of any climate models that can accurately
> 'predict'
> the weather of the past several years.... or months.

Nothing will ever accurately predict weather more than a few days out,
and then only with the most optimal weather condtions.

Weather, like most interesting things, is chaotic in nature, and all
that can be predicted is patterns, like climate.


--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)


=======================================================================

The mike works. That's very important to make sure the mike works, and
ours is working well.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle informing reporters of a
successful sound check before the VP debate, 10/5/88
(reported in Esquire, 8/92)

ahall

12/9/2010 1:00:00 AM

0

chris holt <chris.holt.13@googlemail.com> writes:

> On Dec 8, 7:18?am, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 8:16?pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far. ?
>>
>> And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>
> What about all the other evidence? Measured melting of ice,
> measured increases in global temperature, measured migration
> of flora and fauna?
>>
>> > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>>
>> Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
>> N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>>
>> Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
>> data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
>> models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.
>
> And yet they all produce roughly similar results, and the main
> errors in their predictions have been that they underestimated
> the changes that have been observed over the past five years.
> If I predict that a 12-year-old is likely to grow by 2 inches in the
> next year or so, and he grows by 3 inches, are you going to
> dismiss the entire model of growing on the grounds that I didn't
> pin the number down precisely? Because that's what people

Most likely. At first the climate change deniers were claiming that
the climate was not changing, then they changed to non-human causes.
Who knows what the next dodge will be.

> are doing with global warming models.


--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)


=======================================================================

Fuck the Jews, they didn't vote for us anyway.
-- Secretary of State James Baker.

Phlip

12/9/2010 1:06:00 AM

0

On Dec 8, 5:00 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:

> Most likely.  At first the climate change deniers were claiming that
> the climate was not changing, then they changed to non-human causes.

Meanwhile, Climategate was entirely about "the scientists are
conspiring to lie, and the climate is NOT changing".

The Young Earth Creationism of climate denial...