Comments on: Making Ruby’s garbage collector copy-on-write friendly, part 6 (final?) http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/ Ecchi nanowa ikenai to omoimasu Sat, 05 Jul 2008 18:34:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Crystal http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-8628 Crystal Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:35:47 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-8628 Wow these are very big savings, thanks again. Wow these are very big savings, thanks again.

]]> By: Hongli http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-7947 Hongli Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:07:04 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-7947 No, the memory savings are caused by copy-on-write semantics. No, the memory savings are caused by copy-on-write semantics.

]]> By: roger http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-7944 roger Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:01:47 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-7944 I assume most of the memory-savings is because of using fixed-length "heap blocks"? I assume most of the memory-savings is because of using fixed-length “heap blocks”?

]]> By: 赖洪礼的 blog » Making Ruby’s garbage collector copy-on-write friendly, part 7 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-7574 赖洪礼的 blog » Making Ruby’s garbage collector copy-on-write friendly, part 7 Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:50:14 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-7574 [...] turns out that part 6 was not final. I’ve been working on the garbage collector again. These are the [...] […] turns out that part 6 was not final. I’ve been working on the garbage collector again. These are the […]

]]> By: lloyd hilaiel http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-7010 lloyd hilaiel Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:30:23 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-7010 hi. I'm embarked on a similar mission. make ruby use less memory without going too much slower. I've got a set of very simple test cases, and ran then on 1.8.6 after applying your patch. it's interesting to note that you've got about a 8% performance hit in combination with the 33% memory usage gain according to my toy tests: vanilla 1.8.6: running cases/growarray.rb time 1.355438 running cases/plist.rb time 3.693722 running cases/shrinkarray.rb time 1.351735 cowfriendly 1.8.6: running cases/growarray.rb time 1.485687 running cases/plist.rb time 4.006008 running cases/shrinkarray.rb time 1.48557 (/ 3.693722 4.006008) (/ 1.351735 1.48557) ~8% performance penalty. I'd imagine for a lot of folks this is a tradeoff they're willing to make (8% is a lot better than swapping and paging :), but thought it might be interesting to you anyways. hi.

I’m embarked on a similar mission. make ruby use less memory without going too much slower. I’ve got a set of very simple test cases, and ran then on 1.8.6 after applying your patch. it’s interesting to note that you’ve got about a 8% performance hit in combination with the 33% memory usage gain according to my toy tests:

vanilla 1.8.6:
running cases/growarray.rb
time 1.355438
running cases/plist.rb
time 3.693722
running cases/shrinkarray.rb
time 1.351735

cowfriendly 1.8.6:
running cases/growarray.rb
time 1.485687
running cases/plist.rb
time 4.006008
running cases/shrinkarray.rb
time 1.48557

(/ 3.693722 4.006008)
(/ 1.351735 1.48557)

~8% performance penalty.

I’d imagine for a lot of folks this is a tradeoff they’re willing to make (8% is a lot better than swapping and paging :), but thought it might be interesting to you anyways.

]]> By: Roger Pack http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-6921 Roger Pack Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:11:59 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-6921 You should submit this to the mongrel guys :) You should submit this to the mongrel guys :)

]]> By: Jeremy http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-6808 Jeremy Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:03:35 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-6808 Actually, upon further review, it doesn't. They don't call start. I had a check inside the module, which was outputting, but start never gets called. I'll just run with the standard mongrel for now, and change up "swiftiply_mongrel_rails" to use your stuff instead later. Actually, upon further review, it doesn’t. They don’t call start. I had a check inside the module, which was outputting, but start never gets called. I’ll just run with the standard mongrel for now, and change up “swiftiply_mongrel_rails” to use your stuff instead later.

]]> By: Jeremy http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-6807 Jeremy Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:51:34 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-6807 Already did that. :) - It is. Already did that. :) - It is.

]]> By: Hongli http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-6806 Hongli Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:27:57 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-6806 I'm not sure whether mongrel_light_cluster is compatible with swiftiply_mongrel_rails. You can check whether mongrel_light_cluster is actually active by checking this: <pre lang="ruby"> module Cluster module ExecBase if @@light_cluster_initialized puts "mongrel_light_cluster is active" end end end </pre> I’m not sure whether mongrel_light_cluster is compatible with swiftiply_mongrel_rails. You can check whether mongrel_light_cluster is actually active by checking this:

module Cluster
  module ExecBase
    if @@light_cluster_initialized
        puts "mongrel_light_cluster is active"
    end
  end
end
]]> By: Jeremy http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-6805 Jeremy Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:45:55 +0000 http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/index.php/2007/10/15/making-ruby%e2%80%99s-garbage-collector-copy-on-write-friendly-part-6-final/#comment-6805 I am testing this now with two Rails apps, and swiftiply_mongrel_rails. Startup is 17 megs of RAM, fully loaded is 21-22 megs. I am testing this now with two Rails apps, and swiftiply_mongrel_rails. Startup is 17 megs of RAM, fully loaded is 21-22 megs.

]]>