Thanks all. The amount of data on the Ubuntu staging server is a little bit
more than the data on my Leopard laptop. So the slight difference in DB
access time seems reasonable. What worries me is the intolerably long time
the Ubuntu machine takes to produce the views. I also notice that the
ruby1.8 process on Ubuntu briefly shots up close 100% of the CPU during that
time. Below are the specs of the computers
1. Snow Leopard Laptop : MacBook Pro 2.53 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB 1067
MHz DDR3, 250.06 GB SATA hard drive
- ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [universal-darwin10.0]
- Rails 2.3.5
- mysql Ver 14.14 Distrib 5.1.43, for apple-darwin10.2.0 (i386) using
readline 5.1
- Mongrel
2. Ubuntu 9.10 Server (old former custom built Windows xp computer):
Intel Pentium 4 3.00 Ghz, 1G RAM, 18 (eighteen) GB hard drive. (IDE), 855
MB is swap partition.
- ruby 1.8.7 (2009-06-12 patchlevel 174) [i486-linux]
- Rails 2.3.5
- mysql Ver 14.14 Distrib 5.1.37, for debian-linux-gnu (i486) using
EditLine wrapper
- apache2
Could the difference in hardware configuration explain the slowness in the
Ubuntu box?
Could the way I install ruby, or mysql on the Ubuntu box be of consequence?
I just ran:
-
sudo apt-get install ruby-full build-essential
-
sudo apt-get install mysql-server mysql-client
I read that some people download the ruby and mysql source code and actually
run make to compile them on Ubuntu instead of using apt-get. Would that
have affected later performance?
Besides creating a virtual site in apache2, I did not configure ruby, rails,
mysql, or apache2 on either box in any particular manner. I just stuck with
the default configuration that came with the software. So the software
configuration in these software is not different between the two boxes.
Thanks.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Jeffrey L. Taylor <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Quoting Ease Bus <[email protected]>:
>> Does mysql performance with mongrel and Snow Leopard differ from its
>> performance with Apache and Ubuntu? I am experiencing the issue of
>> slow performance in Ubuntu production environment compared to my
>> Leopard development environment. For the exact same code, after
>> pushing to Ubuntu server, the same action/view takes much longer to
>> complete and many more DB queries on the Ubuntu server:
>>
>> On my Leopard, I get: Completed in 643ms (DB: 322) | 302 Found
>> For Ubuntu, I get: Completed in 8803ms (DB: 517) | 302 Found
>>
>> The number after DB: is the number of SQL queries for that action I
assume.
>>
>
> Do you have the same amounts of data in the DB in production and
development
> environments? The number after 'DB:' is the number of milliseconds the DB
> access required. The difference in DB access times are not nearly as big
as
> the the controller and rendering times (Completed time minus DB time).
I'm
> guessing production has more data in the DB and more data found and
rendered,
> hence increased run times. But the development laptop may be a lot faster
> than the server (higher clock speeds, faster rotating disks, faster disk
> busses, e.g., SATA and USB 2.0 can be much faster than PATA).
>
> You might try disk and other benchmarks on both machines.
>
> HTH,
> Jeffrey
>
> --
> 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 [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]<rubyonrails-talk%[email protected]>
.
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
>
>
--
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
