Zed Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 11:48 -0600, Kirk Haines wrote:
>> On 9/3/06, Zed Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Theorize all you want, but all I know is, use Mutex, process gets
>> > killed, use Sync, process stays up. Can't argue with the evidence.
>>
>> Sure I can. Your conclusion about Mutex is like the conclusion once
>> drawn about the sun. It comes up in the east and goes down in the
>> west, so the evidence clearly shows that the sun rotates around the
>> earth, right?
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with Mutex. It's an incredibly simple piece of
>> code and can quite clearly be demonstrated not to leak.
>>
>> I'm not arguing with the fact that for some users simply swapping Sync
>> in place of Mutex appears to clear a problem. I'm just arguing with
>> your conclusion that this is because Mutex is broken or because Ruby
>> is leaking memory when it is used.
>
> I like you Kirk, so don't take it personally, it's just an incredibly
> sore spot with me since I've been complaining about this for ages and
> everyone keeps telling me I'm crazy despite what I demonstrate.
>
> But, explain this:
>
> http://pastie.caboo.se/10194
>
>
> vs.
>
> http://pastie.caboo.se/10317
>
> First one leaks, second one doesn't (with graphs even). What's worse is
> the inverse is true on win32. These scripts have no Mongrel code, no
> Rails code, they're just short Ruby scripts.
I'm really not trying to be dense here, but why are you reading a
horizontal line as a leak? Especially a horizontal line that is not
very far above the average ('estimated' by squinting and guessing) of
the second graph....
Steve
_______________________________________________
Mongrel-users mailing list
Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
