Forum: RSpec Cucumber - Performance

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Colin J. (Guest)
on 2009-01-07 12:11
(Received via mailing list)
Hi,

Small question on performance. I've just run the CS example provided
with Cucumber and it took about 45-50 seconds before the first output
appeared in the console, but once this first output had appeared the
tests completed quickly.

I'm wondering whether this is the expected performance or whether the
plan is to optimize it at some time in the future?

Ta,

Colin
Aslak H. (Guest)
on 2009-01-07 13:48
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Colin J. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
wrote:

>
The reason it's so slow is that IronRuby is slow. That's where the
optimisation will have to happen. It runs "fast" on JRuby, MRI and YARV.

Aslak
Matt W. (Guest)
on 2009-01-07 14:02
(Received via mailing list)
On 7 Jan 2009, at 09:31, Colin J. wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Small question on performance. I've just run the CS example provided
> with Cucumber and it took about 45-50 seconds before the first
> output appeared in the console, but once this first output had
> appeared the tests completed quickly.
>
> I'm wondering whether this is the expected performance or whether
> the plan is to optimize it at some time in the future?

I normally just use MRI to run Cucumber, but I have tried JRuby a
couple of times and noticed that was a bit slower to start up. I'd
guess it's something similar with IronRuby - .NET apps are often slow
to start up the first time in my experience, as the JIT compilation
kicks in or whatever magic it is these days.

Have you tried running any other Ruby tools through IronRuby? How do
they perform?

If you think it's a bug in Cucumber (even if one specific to running
on the IronRuby platform) please raise a ticket at lighthouse[1].
Obviously the more you can do to diagnose the fault, the faster it's
likely to be fixed.

[1]http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16211-cucu...

Matt W.
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://www.songkick.com
Matt W. (Guest)
on 2009-01-07 14:21
(Received via mailing list)
On 7 Jan 2009, at 11:46, aslak hellesoy wrote:

>
> I'm wondering whether this is the expected performance or whether
> the plan is to optimize it at some time in the future?
>
>
> The reason it's so slow is that IronRuby is slow. That's where the
> optimisation will have to happen. It runs "fast" on JRuby, MRI and
> YARV.

My guess is that it's the initial start-up that's slow. This is a
great reason to use something like autotest, which will keep the
process loaded up. I wonder how that hell you could make that work
with C# code though! Watch the DLLs?!

Matt W.
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://www.songkick.com
Scott T. (Guest)
on 2009-01-07 17:54
(Received via mailing list)
Matt W. wrote:
>> with Cucumber and it took about 45-50 seconds before the first output
> My guess is that it's the initial start-up that's slow. This is a
> great reason to use something like autotest, which will keep the
> process loaded up. I wonder how that hell you could make that work
> with C# code though! Watch the DLLs?!
Autotest doesn't keep the process running - it invokes a new process by
shelling out (Kernel#`)

Scott
Thibaut B. (Guest)
on 2009-03-04 12:40
(Received via mailing list)
> My guess is that it's the initial start-up that's slow. This is a great
> reason to use something like autotest, which will keep the process loaded
> up. I wonder how that hell you could make that work with C# code though!
> Watch the DLLs?!

coming late on this one - if this is useful to someone, you can quite
easily watch the dll's using the built-in FileSystemWatcher
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io....).

cheers,

-- Thibaut
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.