I''m confused. Wasn''t threading fixed in 1.8.6, negating the need for fastthread? Why is fastthread still a requirement of Mongrel? Just curious. :)
On Jan 1, 2008 10:26 PM, Kevin Williams <kevwil at gmail.com> wrote:> I''m confused. Wasn''t threading fixed in 1.8.6, negating the need for > fastthread? Why is fastthread still a requirement of Mongrel? Just > curious. :)1.8.6 ships with fastthread enabled by default, but some distro maintainers build with --disable-fastthread (I don''t remember the exact configure command right now). Also, mongrel is compatible with 1.8.4 and 1.8.5, and that is the standard version that is currently powering a lot of servers. -- Luis Lavena Multimedia systems - A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. Douglas Adams
Thank you. On Jan 1, 2008 6:05 PM, Luis Lavena <luislavena at gmail.com> wrote:> > On Jan 1, 2008 10:26 PM, Kevin Williams <kevwil at gmail.com> wrote: > > I''m confused. Wasn''t threading fixed in 1.8.6, negating the need for > > fastthread? Why is fastthread still a requirement of Mongrel? Just > > curious. :) > > 1.8.6 ships with fastthread enabled by default, but some distro > maintainers build with --disable-fastthread (I don''t remember the > exact configure command right now). > > Also, mongrel is compatible with 1.8.4 and 1.8.5, and that is the > standard version that is currently powering a lot of servers. > > -- > Luis Lavena > Multimedia systems > - > A common mistake that people make when trying to design > something completely foolproof is to underestimate > the ingenuity of complete fools. > Douglas Adams > _______________________________________________ > Mongrel-users mailing list > Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users >
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 17:26:38 -0700, "Kevin Williams" <kevwil at gmail.com> wrote:> I''m confused. Wasn''t threading fixed in 1.8.6, negating the need for > fastthread? Why is fastthread still a requirement of Mongrel? Just > curious. :)Welll.. it greatly depends which patchlevel of 1.8.6 you have. The earlier patchlevels are actually kind of broken; using fastthread in that case works around the problems. -mental
I think we will probably remove the Fastthread and cgi_multipart_eof_fix dependencies at the same time we get 1.9 compatibility. Seems appropriate to me at least. Evan On Jan 2, 2008 10:18 AM, MenTaLguY <mental at rydia.net> wrote:> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 17:26:38 -0700, "Kevin Williams" <kevwil at gmail.com> wrote: > > I''m confused. Wasn''t threading fixed in 1.8.6, negating the need for > > fastthread? Why is fastthread still a requirement of Mongrel? Just > > curious. :) > > Welll.. it greatly depends which patchlevel of 1.8.6 you have. The earlier > patchlevels are actually kind of broken; using fastthread in that case > works around the problems. > > -mental > > > _______________________________________________ > Mongrel-users mailing list > Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users >-- Evan Weaver Cloudburst, LLC
On 1/2/08, Evan Weaver <evan at cloudbur.st> wrote:> > I think we will probably remove the Fastthread and > cgi_multipart_eof_fix dependencies at the same time we get 1.9 > compatibility. Seems appropriate to me at least.Evan, I hope I''m wrong here, but the way I understand what you''re saying is that Mongrel will stop patching Ruby once Mongrel is ready to run on Ruby 1.9. Wouldn''t that mean that you at the same time removed support for all Ruby versions below 1.8.6 p36? I''m happy to play with Ruby 1.9, but afaik it''s not meant for production use until it''s called 2.0. Happy new year, all! /David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/attachments/20080102/ae36c87a/attachment.html
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:05:13 +0100, "David Vrensk" <david at vrensk.com> wrote:> I hope I''m wrong here, but the way I understand what you''re saying is that > Mongrel will stop patching Ruby once Mongrel is ready to run on Ruby 1.9. > Wouldn''t that mean that you at the same time removed support for all Ruby > versions below 1.8.6 p36?Well, I''d hope what he meant was that Mongrel would still use fastthread if it was installed, but it would no longer be a dependency of the Mongrel gem. Which would be as it ought to be -- my intent was for fastthread to fill the gap between 1.8 and 1.9, and then eventually go away once people stopped needing/installing it. But the folks on 1.8.x aren''t going away for a while, so I think it''s important that Mongrel uses it if it is installed/supported. -mental
Yeah, it would. That''s why we need to talk about it. I know people complained when the idea was broached last time, so we need to see if p110 is stable and widespread enough now. Of course everyone is free to continue using older Mongrel versions. Evan On Jan 2, 2008 2:05 PM, David Vrensk <david at vrensk.com> wrote:> On 1/2/08, Evan Weaver <evan at cloudbur.st> wrote: > > > I think we will probably remove the Fastthread and > > cgi_multipart_eof_fix dependencies at the same time we get 1.9 > > compatibility. Seems appropriate to me at least. > > Evan, > > I hope I''m wrong here, but the way I understand what you''re saying is that > Mongrel will stop patching Ruby once Mongrel is ready to run on Ruby 1.9. > Wouldn''t that mean that you at the same time removed support for all Ruby > versions below 1.8.6 p36? > > I''m happy to play with Ruby 1.9, but afaik it''s not meant for production use > until it''s called 2.0. > > Happy new year, all! > > /David > > _______________________________________________ > Mongrel-users mailing list > Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users >-- Evan Weaver Cloudburst, LLC
That''s what I should have meant. It could stop being a gem dependency but still be a rescued require. Who is still deployed on 1.8.5 or 1.8.4? Evan On Jan 2, 2008 2:57 PM, MenTaLguY <mental at rydia.net> wrote:> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:05:13 +0100, "David Vrensk" <david at vrensk.com> wrote: > > I hope I''m wrong here, but the way I understand what you''re saying is that > > Mongrel will stop patching Ruby once Mongrel is ready to run on Ruby 1.9. > > Wouldn''t that mean that you at the same time removed support for all Ruby > > versions below 1.8.6 p36? > > Well, I''d hope what he meant was that Mongrel would still use fastthread if > it was installed, but it would no longer be a dependency of the Mongrel gem. > > Which would be as it ought to be -- my intent was for fastthread to fill the > gap between 1.8 and 1.9, and then eventually go away once people stopped > needing/installing it. But the folks on 1.8.x aren''t going away for a while, > so I think it''s important that Mongrel uses it if it is installed/supported. > > -mental > > > _______________________________________________ > Mongrel-users mailing list > Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users >-- Evan Weaver Cloudburst, LLC
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:17:48 -0500, "Evan Weaver" <evan at cloudbur.st> wrote:> I know people complained when the idea was broached last time, so we > need to see if p110 is stable and widespread enough now. > > Of course everyone is free to continue using older Mongrel versions.I think the best option is to make it a "soft dependency". That way people who need fastthread can install it and benefit from it, but we can stop forcing it to install with the gem. -mental
On Jan 2, 2008 6:55 PM, Evan Weaver <evan at cloudbur.st> wrote:> That''s what I should have meant. It could stop being a gem dependency > but still be a rescued require. > > Who is still deployed on 1.8.5 or 1.8.4?EngineYard uses 1.8.5 in most of their servers (AFAIK). Other VPS/Xen hosts that have ruby pre-installed have 1.8.4 or 1.8.5, but most of them allow you build ruby from sources. -- Luis Lavena Multimedia systems - A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. Douglas Adams
On Jan 2, 2008 1:55 PM, Evan Weaver <evan at cloudbur.st> wrote:> That''s what I should have meant. It could stop being a gem dependency > but still be a rescued require. > > Who is still deployed on 1.8.5 or 1.8.4?I''m still using 1.8.5 on my production servers. Kirk Haines
On Jan 2, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Luis Lavena wrote:> On Jan 2, 2008 6:55 PM, Evan Weaver <evan at cloudbur.st> wrote: >> That''s what I should have meant. It could stop being a gem dependency >> but still be a rescued require. >> >> Who is still deployed on 1.8.5 or 1.8.4? > > EngineYard uses 1.8.5 in most of their servers (AFAIK). > > Other VPS/Xen hosts that have ruby pre-installed have 1.8.4 or 1.8.5, > but most of them allow you build ruby from sources. > > -- > Luis Lavena > Multimedia systemsWe have been updating to 1.8.6 p111 but we do still have a lot of ruby 1.8.5''s out there. But I am in favor of making it an optional dependency. Cheers- - Ezra Zygmuntowicz -- Founder & Software Architect -- ezra at engineyard.com -- EngineYard.com
On Jan 2, 2008, at 2:55 PM, Evan Weaver wrote:> Who is still deployed on 1.8.5 or 1.8.4?Debian etch ships 1.8.5. -Nate
Quoting Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezmobius at gmail.com>:> > On Jan 2, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Luis Lavena wrote: > >> On Jan 2, 2008 6:55 PM, Evan Weaver <evan at cloudbur.st> wrote: >>> That''s what I should have meant. It could stop being a gem dependency >>> but still be a rescued require. >>> >>> Who is still deployed on 1.8.5 or 1.8.4? >> >> EngineYard uses 1.8.5 in most of their servers (AFAIK). >> >> Other VPS/Xen hosts that have ruby pre-installed have 1.8.4 or 1.8.5, >> but most of them allow you build ruby from sources. >> >> -- >> Luis Lavena >> Multimedia systems > > > > We have been updating to 1.8.6 p111 but we do still have a lot of ruby > 1.8.5''s out there. But I am in favor of making it an optional > dependency. >I know of quite a few 1.8.4 deployments out there as well. Please don''t exclude these. We are also working towards getting these upgraded. Release of Ruby 1.9 should help this. Mike B. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
CentOS 5 still ships with 1.8.5... Evan Weaver wrote:> That''s what I should have meant. It could stop being a gem dependency > but still be a rescued require. > > Who is still deployed on 1.8.5 or 1.8.4? > > Evan > > On Jan 2, 2008 2:57 PM, MenTaLguY <mental at rydia.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:05:13 +0100, "David Vrensk" <david at vrensk.com> wrote: >> >>> I hope I''m wrong here, but the way I understand what you''re saying is that >>> Mongrel will stop patching Ruby once Mongrel is ready to run on Ruby 1.9. >>> Wouldn''t that mean that you at the same time removed support for all Ruby >>> versions below 1.8.6 p36? >>> >> Well, I''d hope what he meant was that Mongrel would still use fastthread if >> it was installed, but it would no longer be a dependency of the Mongrel gem. >> >> Which would be as it ought to be -- my intent was for fastthread to fill the >> gap between 1.8 and 1.9, and then eventually go away once people stopped >> needing/installing it. But the folks on 1.8.x aren''t going away for a while, >> so I think it''s important that Mongrel uses it if it is installed/supported. >> >> -mental >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mongrel-users mailing list >> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users >> >> > > > >
On Jan 3, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Will Green wrote:> CentOS 5 still ships with 1.8.5...And by extension (or perhaps pretension) so does Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 5 - which is the licensed linux at NC State University (and which I use for most of extension.org''s servers). I''ve been hand replacing the RHELv5 RPM''s with a configure/make/make install version of Ruby 1.8.6 - but until RHELv6 comes out, I seriously doubt many of the RHEL customers are going to have a 1.8.6 version of Ruby - except for the crazy ones like me. We are going to be using LogicWorks for hosting portions of extension.org and they are also apparently a RHEL shop. I doubt 1.8.5 is going away anytime soon. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jason Young -- Systems Manager, eXtension http://about.extension.org/wiki/Jason_Young ______________________________________
I''m a little surprised. We always build things like ruby so we have a bit more control over what is turned on or off. Most distributions ship with a version of ruby (or python, or any other scripting language) that is configured for their convenience rather than ours. We build ruby on our development machines even though Macs ship with a reasonable ruby installed. On Jan 3, 2008 5:20 PM, Jason Young <jason.young at ncsu.edu> wrote:> > On Jan 3, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Will Green wrote: > > > CentOS 5 still ships with 1.8.5... > >-- geoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/attachments/20080104/b6a2d6dd/attachment.html
Why are you surprised? The version that ships with CentOS 5 is, IMHO, quite reasonable - ruby 1.8.5 (2006-08-25) [i386-linux] Best of all, its supported by a commercial entity (CentOS packages lag behind RedHat Enterprise by about 2 days, I believe). Meaning that I, a lone developer/sysadmin , can spend my time building apps for my customers instead of recompiling Ruby. It''s a case of "good enough". I suspect you''ll also find this sentiment resonates with other small groups of developers. =Will Green Geoffrey Clements wrote:> I''m a little surprised. We always build things like ruby so we have a > bit more control over what is turned on or off. Most distributions > ship with a version of ruby (or python, or any other scripting > language) that is configured for their convenience rather than ours. > We build ruby on our development machines even though Macs ship with a > reasonable ruby installed. > > On Jan 3, 2008 5:20 PM, Jason Young <jason.young at ncsu.edu > <mailto:jason.young at ncsu.edu>> wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Will Green wrote: > > > CentOS 5 still ships with 1.8.5... > > > -- > geoff > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Mongrel-users mailing list > Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
It may be good enough but it''s built for i386 and you get the features redhat chose to install with it. The one on my local machine is: ruby 1.8.6(2007-09-23 patchlevel 110) [ i686-darwin9.1.0]. If nothing else it is compiled for i686 rather than i386 which means the compiler can use 686 instructions to build my version of ruby rather than be limited to 386 instructions in yours. If you build your own you can control what features are installed and the gems library will not mix with what ever gems redhat chose to install. (I don''t remember if they actually install gems or not so I may be off base here.) In any case, it''s not that important, Just my feeling... On Jan 4, 2008 10:57 PM, Will Green <will at hotgazpacho.com> wrote:> Why are you surprised? The version that ships with CentOS 5 is, IMHO, > quite reasonable - ruby 1.8.5 (2006-08-25) [i386-linux] > > Best of all, its supported by a commercial entity (CentOS packages lag > behind RedHat Enterprise by about 2 days, I believe). Meaning that I, a > lone developer/sysadmin , can spend my time building apps for my > customers instead of recompiling Ruby. > > It''s a case of "good enough". I suspect you''ll also find this sentiment > resonates with other small groups of developers. > > => Will Green > > Geoffrey Clements wrote: > > I''m a little surprised. We always build things like ruby so we have a > > bit more control over what is turned on or off. Most distributions > > ship with a version of ruby (or python, or any other scripting > > language) that is configured for their convenience rather than ours. > > We build ruby on our development machines even though Macs ship with a > > reasonable ruby installed. > > > > On Jan 3, 2008 5:20 PM, Jason Young <jason.young at ncsu.edu > > <mailto:jason.young at ncsu.edu>> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Will Green wrote: > > > > > CentOS 5 still ships with 1.8.5... > > > > > > -- > > geoff > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mongrel-users mailing list > > Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users > > _______________________________________________ > Mongrel-users mailing list > Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users >-- geoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/attachments/20080105/3024e24e/attachment.html
On Jan 5, 2008 11:30 AM, Geoffrey Clements <baldmountain at gmail.com> wrote:> It may be good enough but it''s built for i386 and you get the features > redhat chose to install with it. The one on my local machine is: ruby 1.8.6 > (2007-09-23 patchlevel 110) [i686-darwin9.1.0]. If nothing else it is > compiled for i686 rather than i386 which means the compiler can use 686 > instructions to build my version of ruby rather than be limited to 386 > instructions in yours. >I''ll also like to point that some of these distros build ruby with --enable-pthreads, just for the sake of compatibility with Tk. If oyu don''t plan to use Tk (mostly you wouldn''t), you can have a bit performance boost. Ezra pointed me that fact a few months back when talking about ruby builds inside EY.> If you build your own you can control what features are installed and the > gems library will not mix with what ever gems redhat chose to install. (I > don''t remember if they actually install gems or not so I may be off base > here.)Yes, the mix is a bit problematic and something like rubygems update raised a lot of issues. Users using their distro packaged rubygem tried to use ''gem update --system'' and thus, ended with a broken rubygems. If you build your own ruby, you don''t have to worry about that :-) -- Luis Lavena Multimedia systems - A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. Douglas Adams