[Mongrel] multi threaded theoretically useful?

Faisal N Jawdat faisal at faisal.com
Fri Sep 7 16:14:29 EDT 2007


Are you assuming that the memory hit per-thread is about the same as  
per mongrel process?

-faisal

On Sep 7, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz wrote:

>
> On Sep 7, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Roger Pack wrote:
>
>> So here's a random question: if a (Ruby) multi-threaded rails
>> server could exist (bug free), would it be faster than using a
>> mongrel cluster? (I.e. 10 mongrel processes versus 10 Ruby
>> threads). I'm not sure if it would. RAM it might save, though. Any
>> thoughts? -Roger
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mongrel-users mailing list
>> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
>
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers-
> -- Ezra Zygmuntowicz 
> -- Founder & Ruby Hacker
> -- ez at engineyard.com
> -- Engine Yard, Serious Rails Hosting
> -- (866) 518-YARD (9273)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users



More information about the Mongrel-users mailing list