[Backgroundrb-devel] New Backgroundrb Speed Issues?

Jason Fox jfoxny at gmail.com
Tue Nov 7 23:10:07 EST 2006


Here's what I did:

- Started the old backgroundrb
- Called the worker from my controller
- Recorded the time (~14 seconds)
- Shutdown the old backgroundrb
- Started the new backgroundrb
- Called the worker from my controller
- Recorded the time (~28 seconds)

So, basically, one call to each version right after starting them up.

Regards,
Jason

On Nov 7, 2006, at 9:37 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz wrote:

> Jason are you starting a new worker each time you try this? Or do  
> you have a long running worker you can call multiple times to do  
> the same calculations? The new system does have more overhead for  
> starting new workers. So it is better to design your system with a  
> few core workers that always run and then you continue to call  
> methods on these long workers.
>
> The old system may be faster in a few cases and thats fine if it  
> still works for you. This new version is much more scalable. I need  
> it to be able to handle a significant number of things that each  
> require the power of their own ruby interpreter. You can easily run  
> into issues with ruby's green threads in the old code.
>
> That said the new code is still teething. Like we said we will have  
> a rock solid production version by 0.3.0. We appreciate people  
> testing the new version and please file bug reports on the trac:
>
> 	http://backgroundrb.devjavu.com/
>
> Thanks
> -Ezra
>
>
> On Nov 7, 2006, at 6:29 PM, Jason Fox wrote:
>
>> The working running under the old backgroundrb took approximately 14
>> seconds to complete its task.  With the new worker it is taking 28
>> seconds to perform the same amount of work under the same conditions
>> (i.e., database state, system load, etc.).  I could attempt the test
>> again with a larger file and see if the ratio holds.  Thoughts?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>> On Nov 7, 2006, at 9:20 PM, skaar wrote:
>>
>>
>>> * Jason Fox (jfoxny at gmail.com) [061107 19:54]:
>>>
>>>> The new backgroundrb seemed to me to be markedly slower than the  
>>>> old
>>>> one.  So, I ran a "side-by-side" comparison test using a worker  
>>>> that
>>>> I had written which parses a CSV file and loads the results into a
>>>> database.  The results?  The latest version appears to take  
>>>> twice as
>>>> long to run the same code as the previous version.  Has anyone else
>>>> experienced speed issues with the new version?
>>>>
>>>
>>> there is more setup when you are creating a new worker now, but
>>> performance when that is done, shouldn't be any worse. What kind of
>>> difference are you seeing?
>>>
>>> /skaar
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> --
>>> |\|\             where in the       |           
>>> s_u_b_s_t_r_u_c_t_i_o_n
>>> | | >===========  W.A.S.T.E.        |                   
>>> genarratologies
>>> |/|/    (_)     is the wisdom       |                   
>>> skaar at waste.org
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> --
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Backgroundrb-devel mailing list
>> Backgroundrb-devel at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/backgroundrb-devel
>
> -- Ezra Zygmuntowicz-- Lead Rails Evangelist
> -- ez at engineyard.com
> -- Engine Yard, Serious Rails Hosting
> -- (866) 518-YARD (9273)
>
>



More information about the Backgroundrb-devel mailing list