[Backgroundrb-devel] Question about backgroundrb and resource usage

hemant gethemant at gmail.com
Mon Aug 10 22:16:59 EDT 2009

It totally depends on what you are doing. If your task is thread-safe
you can even use thread_pool.defer() which will make sure that at
least IO sensitive tasks are running concurrently.

You don't need 10 workers there. One worker with some thread pool
thrown around should suffice.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Peter Gengler<ppgengler at prevailhs.com> wrote:
> You know that's an interesting point about the single worker; has anyone ever used Skynet?  Their fortay is distributing map/reduce problems in the background, but they also mixed in a function to ActiveRecord called send_later which allowed you to send off any method of a model for later processing.  I wrote my own mixin that does the same thing with Backgroundrb and a GenericWorker class (and I added send_now_or_later so I could have a fallback) because I liked keeping the functions on the model.  That would lend itself to reducing the backgroundrb overhead as you'd have a single worker for any asynchronous AR processing, although it doesn't help with the cron-style jobs.
> \Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Williams [mailto:adam at thewilliams.ws]
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 6:50 PM
> To: Peter Gengler
> Cc: backgroundrb-devel at rubyforge.org
> Subject: Re: [Backgroundrb-devel] Question about backgroundrb and resource usage
> On Aug 10, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Peter Gengler wrote:
>> So I have a somewhat general question about backgroundrb and
>> resource usage.  I hadn't really considered the fact that it spools
>> up a new rails process for each worker until I started making more
>> workers; now that I'm have half a dozen it seems like the current
>> design is really unscalable.  I.e. if my rails stack takes 200MB of
>> memory for example, that means 10 workers use 2GB of memory?  That
>> seems overly excessive to me, am I missing something that prevents
>> that resource bloat?
> As far as I have seen, you're not missing anything. I had the same
> problem and ended up having a single worker, with different methods
> for the work. I'm considering getting rid of backgroundrb altogether,
> favoring instead simply loading ActiveRecord and the model classes I
> need, with the hope that a cron task can fire the thing up within a
> few seconds. We need tasks to run every minute, so it must be fast
> loading. Anyway, that would allow us to unload a couple hundred meg at
> Engine Yard.
>   adam
> _______________________________________________
> Backgroundrb-devel mailing list
> Backgroundrb-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/backgroundrb-devel

Let them talk of their oriental summer climes of everlasting
conservatories; give me the privilege of making my own summer with my
own coals.


More information about the Backgroundrb-devel mailing list