similar to: would multithreaded rails be faster?

So here''s a random question: if a (Ruby) multi-threaded rails server could exist (bug free), would it be faster than using a mongrel cluster? (I.e. 10 mongrel processes versus 10 Ruby threads). I''m not sure if it would. RAM it might save, though. Any thoughts? -Roger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Wondering if anyone''s heard of a php script that will ''forward'' your requests on to, say, a mongrel instance, and return it? Kind of a php fcgi? Thoughts? Thanks. -Roger -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails:

I am aware of a problem with multi-threaded ruby apps, in which one socket reads from another''s input/output or what not. Zed reports this as a generic problem in Ruby multi-threaded apps, and I''ve seen the same in my own programs. I have, however, never heard of this becoming a problem for mongrel. Is this true? Is there something mongrel does to get

I read this in a previous post ( http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/2006-December/002354.html) .... First, Mongrel accepts remote clients and creates one Thread for each request. Mongrel also enforces a single request/response using Connect:close headers because Ruby only supports 1024 files (so far). If Mongrel doesn''t do this then people like yourself can write a simple

I''m developing small intranet solution that displays some data from another internal HTTP server. Using ''net/http'' I''m getting data via rails controller action from another server, this works quite well. Processing data on another server takes approx. 1-2 seconds, what is fine and acceptable, but now rails application takes 1-2 sec to respond to the user.

Here are some notes from the scalability session of last week''s Rails camp. They were entered by another session participant and are posted at: http://www.rubyonrailscamp.com/10%3A15%2Bsession%2B-%2Bscaling The key points from my point of view: - the Ruby VM is sketchy, rather like the Java VM around 1997 - the single threaded nature of Rails dispatch handling means we may incur a

Hi All, First, I''m new to the list, so I''d like to say hello to all fellow mongrelists :) Second, I''d like to ask you if there''s any way to make a simple mongrel script run multithreaded? No rails, just plain old class MyHandler < Mongrel::HttpHandler . . . h = Mongrel::HttpServer.new("127.0.0.1", "80") stuff. Since win32 lacks fork,

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> wrote: > If accuracy is not critical, incrementing the counters without any guards > might be good enough. > No. Contention on the counters leads to 5x-10x slowdown. This is never good enough. --kcc Hot areas will still be hot and cold areas will not be affected. > > Yaron > > > >

My understanding is that: 1. rails is single threaded and serves one request at a time 2. mongrel is single threaded and can process one rails request at a time 3. mongrel_cluster starts a few mongrel servers on the same machine Based on this, the single most important factor becomes the time it takes to load a single page (to avoid blocking). If this is all true, what''s considered a

Good thinking, but why do you think runtime selection of shard count is better than compile time selection? For single threaded apps, shard count is always 1, so why paying the penalty to check thread id each time function is entered? For multi-threaded apps, I would expect MAX to be smaller than NUM_OF_CORES to avoid excessive memory consumption, then you always end up with N == MAX. If MAX is

Hello All Does any know about some opensource multithread-compatible (or concurrent) garbage collector library, if possible suitable for LLVM? (I mean that I want several mutator threads; the collector can be stoptheworld or concurrent ....) H.Boehm's conservative GC is multithread compatible, but seems quite slow (allocation is about the time of a C malloc). And it is well known that

On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > On 2014-Apr-17, at 10:38, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Another idea is to use stack local counters per function -- synced up with global

Hello Rubyists, I''m currently trying to get email hooked up via ActionMailer, and while I''ve gotten it to work in the past on Rails 1.2.x, I''m seeing an error that I''m unfamiliar with. Right now, I''m just trying to send email from my dev box via the SMTP server at work. My development.rb file: #...snip config.action_mailer.delivery_method = :smtp

Hi, Does anyone know why gem can''t find activerecord-oracle-adapter? C:\>rails --version Rails 2.0.1 C:\>gem install activerecord-oracle-adapter ERROR: While executing gem ... (Gem::GemNotFoundException) Could not find activerecord-oracle-adapter (> 0) in any repository It all started when I tried to run Mongrel on a Win32 box: C:\web\FDS_Server>mongrel_rails start

I don''t know if this is a mongrel thing, but Completed in 0.61607 (1 reqs/sec) | Rendering: 0.59662 (96%) | DB: 0.00000 (0%) | 200 OK [http://ties/] This line always confuses me. And I''d imagine it confuses every newbie, too. Though useful, it doesn''t add up to 100% so confuses slightly. Maybe an option would be Completed in 0.61607 (1 reqs/sec) | Rendering: 0.59

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote: > Hi, > > This is long thread, so I will combine several comments into single email. > > > >> - 8-bit per-thread counters, dumping into central counters on overflow. > >The overflow will happen very quickly with 8bit counter. > > Yes, but it reduces contention by 256x (a thread

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com>wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com>wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This is long thread, so I will combine several comments into single

Hi I have some questions regarding threads in Mongrel and Rails. According to the FAQ: "Ruby on Rails is not thread safe so there is a synchronized block around the calls to Dispatcher.dispatch. This means that everything is threaded right before and right after Rails runs. While Rails is running there is only one controller in operation at a time." Isn''t this going

It appears that Mongrel is now the default development server for Rails as of 2.x. I''m assuming this because I''m unable to run Mongrel (for reasons I don''t totally understand yet - I am running Windows and I keep getting asked for MSVCR80.dll which is a _64 bit_ dll on my Win XP machine) and if I issue ruby script/server, I see the same errors that I get when I try to

Hi, my video sharing website (politube.org) that I developed with rails, runs on lighttpd/fcgi (I know it is obsolete by now) and is severely under load and regularly blocks because the lighttpd process chews up 50% of RAM (1GB). So now I want to move the system to a new server with 8GB, 64bit , Quad core processor (intel i7 920) but I am not sure if hyperthreading will really do anything better.