Are you assuming that the memory hit per-thread is about the same as per mongrel process?
-faisal On Sep 7, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz wrote: > > On Sep 7, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Roger Pack wrote: > >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> Mongrel-users mailing list >> Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users > > > Hey Roger- > > No it would not be as fast at all. Current ruby threads are green > threads, meaning that they do not use native OS threads so there is > no real parallel execution. Ruby has an internal timer and just > switches between threads really fast. So 10 mongrels will trounce one > thread safe mongrel. > > Ruby 1.9, Jruby and Rubinius will eventually have native threads and > may make this situation better but for now such is life. > > Cheers- > -- Ezra Zygmuntowicz > -- Founder & Ruby Hacker > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Engine Yard, Serious Rails Hosting > -- (866) 518-YARD (9273) > > > _______________________________________________ > Mongrel-users mailing list > Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users _______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
