At Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:39:33 -0700, Ezra Zygmuntowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > […] > > > On 9/7/07, Erik Hetzner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> […] > >> I know why we are getting greater performance, and again, I don't > >> think it's artificial. But, in any case, it was a demonstration, > >> mostly for the original responder, who claimed that you would never > >> get more performance from Ruby threads. > > Yeah I actually said that you would never get more performance out of > one mongrel running 10 threads then you would with 10 mongrels > running one thread. Just to clarify ;) My apologies for misquoting you, and also apologies for referring to you as ‘the original responder’ - a bit rude, really. :) Here is your original message: > 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. I’ve just tested this on my uniprocessor machine. 10 single-threaded mongrels of my sample sleep + fibonacci web server, balanced behind an apache load balancer, versus 1 multithreaded mongrels without a load balancer. The performance, in terms of requests/second, is almost identical. best, Erik Hetzner ;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library ;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3
pgpJWAodDO4h3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
