similar to: Garbage collection kills my logger and results jobs too

Hi! As you might remember I''m having a problem of backgroundrb stopping calling my workers after some period of time. I tried adding logging to backgroundrb source code but it didn''t help. So, after digging through internet I''ve found several gdb tools and here''s what I''ve discovered: After attaching to a backgroundrb ruby process it turns out that it

I''ve been troubleshooting this problem for several hours now and haven''t been able to figure out what''s wrong. I have two boxes, dev and prod, both are identical except that prod uses Ruby 1.8.5 and dev uses 1.8.4. Both are running Slave 1.2.0, Daemons 1.0.5, and Backroundrb 0.2.1. The behavior I''m seeing is this. When I first start Backgroundrb, this is what

example: :host: 192.168.1.101 :protocol: druby :worker_dir: lib/workers :rails_env: production :pool_size: 15 :load_rails: true :timer_sleep: 60 :acl: :deny: all :allow: localhost 192.168.1.* :order: deny allow I have this config file on 2 app servers running rails. The 2 servers are running behind a load balancer. I''m starting the backgroundrb server on the one server with the

I''m running the latest backgroundrb mainly for scheduled tasks support. As per the documentation I created the backgroundrb_schedules.yml with the following: simple_label: :class: :document_sorter_worker :worker_method: :do_work :job: :bleh :trigger_args: :start: <%= Time.now + 5.seconds %> :end: <%= Time.now + 10.minutes :repeat_interval: 1.minute Under

Hi All, Real neophyte here, to both backgroundrb and ruby/rails in general. (Hey, we''ve all got to start somewhere, right!) :) I''ve just been playing around with the example code at http://backgroundrb.rubyforge.org/ , and trying to get all the pieces to work (btw, I''m using version 0.2.1). I did a ''generate worker example'', which created an

Hi, I am fairly new to ruby/rails, but I thought I did a fair job of setting up my background worker, but after some time, maybe 4-5 hours of running, it just stops running, without any messages. Here is the yml file: backgroundrb.yml --- :port: 2000 :rails_env: production :host: localhost here is my schedules file: alerts_task: :class: :alerts_worker :job_key: :alerts_key

Hi gang, Thanks to other help I''ve gotten on this list, I''ve got backgroundrb up and running using postgres alongside my rails app. I''ve designed the system to have several eternally-running workers that periodically poll the database to see if there''s any work for them to do, and set things up in the config file to make them restart quickly if any of them

Hello all, We''re currently running version .1.x in our environment. We would like to move to .2.x to take advantage of some of the improvements made running in a multi-process environment. We deploy to a linux environment but develop locally in Windows. I''m aware that a number of people have reported the ability to run .2.x of backgroundrb inside cygwin, and for the most part,

I have a scheduled worker that runs every minute, checking for new eBay auctions to post. If it finds an auction, then it posts it. If there are no auctions in the database that are queued up, it simply does nothing. I got the worker to finally run as a scheduled worker, every minute. However, after about 30-45 scheduled runs, it simply stops running. My backgroundrb_schedules.yml file: ------

Howdy, I''m trying to use monit with backgroundrb, but it seems that backgroundrb.ppid isn''t holding the id of the backgroundrb task. jodi at soup/var/www/the-soup/current $ cat log/backgroundrb.ppid 23182 jodi at soup/var/www/the-soup/current $ ps -efl 1 S deploy 23184 1 0 75 0 - 27056 stext 11:27 ? 00:00:04 backgroundrb 1 S deploy 23186 23184 0 76

Hi, First off, thanks Ezra for showing the way with BackgrounDrb. It''s a real godsend. I wanted to add a bit of job control to the system so that I could cancel DRB processes and so on. I thought I''d share how I did it in case anyone should find it useful or have feedback. I wanted to be able to put checkpoints into the drb job so that I could let the job do whatever needs to

Hi All, Can you give some ideas on Garbage collection in Ruby? Thanks in advance... -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To

We have developed rails reports and deployed in server, report have some hierarchy levels..... Initially we have less volume of data in database table and report is running with fine performance... after few months,reports get very slower, we thought that this could be because of data increased in database table ( nearly 11 lakhs of records in table)..... Then i created index and report has

Bugs item #20759, was opened at 2008-06-21 04:20 You can respond by visiting: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=218&aid=20759&group_id=35 Category: Incorrect behavior Group: current Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 3 Submitted By: Nobody (None) Assigned to: Nobody (None) Summary: [BUG] object allocation during garbage collection phase Initial Comment:

Hi, We are working on a project to improve garbage collection using pool allocation in llvm. Has anybody implemented any garbage collection algorithm in llvm? There is an incomplete semispace GC implementation in llvm. It will be of great help, if somebody has a complete GC implementation. Regards, Swarup. ************************************* Swarup Kumar Sahoo Thomas M. Siebel Center for

Couple of questions: 1. void llvm_gc_write(void *V, void *ObjPtr, void **FieldPtr) I haven't seen an adequate explanation of these, but I'm guessing: void *V: value being written to the field void *ObjPtr: current value of the field (ie. ObjPtr == *FieldPtr upon entry to llvm_gc_write) void **FieldPtr: address of the field being written 2. The current semispace collector includes

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Sandro Magi wrote: > I've attached the lazy ref-counting collector if anyone's interested. > There are a few suggested enhancements in the source for those who > might want to extend it, such as bounds for real-time constraints, or > adding generations to reduce the overhead of filtering out the live > roots. :-) By the way, how are you testing this?

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Sandro Magi wrote: >> consider all pointers to be in scope, without causing any "dead" pointers >> to mark objects. > > Does this mean some pointers from the roots might be null? Well sure, if they are null. e.g.: int *X = NULL; X would be null. Is that what you mean? > I figured > only in-scope variables/roots would be in the

Yes, the JIT implementation was recently improved to add support for this. There's nothing you need to do (or emit). The JIT implementation will automatically collect memory that is not being used. See the JITMemoryManager in lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITEmitter.cpp for details. Reid. On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 14:30 -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > If I recall correctly, the garbage collector

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: > Yes, the JIT implementation was recently improved to add support for > this. There's nothing you need to do (or emit). The JIT implementation > will automatically collect memory that is not being used. See the > JITMemoryManager in lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITEmitter.cpp for details. The JIT doesn't automatically do this. I don't