[Mongrel] Recommentation: Sessions and PStore

Steven Lumos steven at lumos.us
Tue Sep 5 13:13:08 EDT 2006

Zed Shaw <zedshaw at zedshaw.com> writes:

> On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 11:48 -0600, Kirk Haines wrote:
>> On 9/3/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw at zedshaw.com> wrote:
>> > Theorize all you want, but all I know is, use Mutex, process gets
>> > killed, use Sync, process stays up.  Can't argue with the evidence.
>> Sure I can.  Your conclusion about Mutex is like the conclusion once
>> drawn about the sun.  It comes up in the east and goes down in the
>> west, so the evidence clearly shows that the sun rotates around the
>> earth, right?
>> There is nothing wrong with Mutex.  It's an incredibly simple piece of
>> code and can quite clearly be demonstrated not to leak.
>> I'm not arguing with the fact that for some users simply swapping Sync
>> in place of Mutex appears to clear a problem.  I'm just arguing with
>> your conclusion that this is because Mutex is broken or because Ruby
>> is leaking memory when it is used.
> I like you Kirk, so don't take it personally, it's just an incredibly
> sore spot with me since I've been complaining about this for ages and
> everyone keeps telling me I'm crazy despite what I demonstrate.
> But, explain this:
> http://pastie.caboo.se/10194
> vs.
> http://pastie.caboo.se/10317
> First one leaks, second one doesn't (with graphs even).  What's worse is
> the inverse is true on win32.  These scripts have no Mongrel code, no
> Rails code, they're just short Ruby scripts.

I'm really not trying to be dense here, but why are you reading a
horizontal line as a leak?  Especially a horizontal line that is not
very far above the average ('estimated' by squinting and guessing) of
the second graph....


More information about the Mongrel-users mailing list