Forum: Ruby 64-bit Ruby for OS X ?

Has anyone built a 64-bit Ruby for Leopard. I've googled my brains out,
but am finding nothing.

I'm using 1.8.6 right now, but I could start testing 1.9.x if necessary.

I need it for pure Ruby projects to work on some large data aggregation
tasks that are whacking the 4GB RAM limit.

-- gw

On Jun 30, 2009, at 18:36, Greg Willits wrote:

> Has anyone built a 64-bit Ruby for Leopard. I've googled my brains  
> out,
> but am finding nothing.
>
> I'm using 1.8.6 right now, but I could start testing 1.9.x if  
> necessary.
>
> I need it for pure Ruby projects to work on some large data  
> aggregation
> tasks that are whacking the 4GB RAM limit.


Read:

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/building/building.html#/
/apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001064-CH208-BHCHDAFB

For 1.9 I configured:

$ LDFLAGS="-arch x86_64" CFLAGS="-arch x86_64 -mmacosx-version-
min=10.5 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" ./configure

(ignore the error from fuse, it seems configure doesn't use CFLAGS
there)

`make test` finishes most tests, `make test-all` fails with a missing
encoding (maybe iconv isn't compiled 64-bit?)

The built ruby is 64-bit though:

$ ./ruby -ve 'p 1.size'
ruby 1.9.1p129 (2009-05-12 revision 23412) [i386-darwin9.7.0]
8

Compared to Apple ruby:

$ ruby -ve 'p 1.size'
ruby 1.8.6 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 287) [universal-darwin9.0]
4

I imagine the same configure flags would work for 1.8.

I personally won't use anything that isn't under x64.  No offense to 
people
who are scared about memory usage but I prefer to be able to address my
12GB+ of Ram on each of my servers without needing to hack my Kernel for
anything more than security, and speed.  I've had no problems with the
memory the gentleman reported with memory consumption crawling on OSX, 
BSD
or Debian so perhaps it's just a bad compile in his behalf? Our Daemons 
that
monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was 
happening
but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we get, 
our
total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes 
that
run Ruby.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

On Jul 1, 2009, at 14:28 , Jordon Bedwell wrote:

> Daemons that
> monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was  
> happening
> but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we  
> get, our
> total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes  
> that
> run Ruby.

such sophistication and yet you still top-post...

I want to take the time to thank you for calling me out personally and
singling me out for something that lots of people do, while I continue 
to
"top-post".  I prefer it when people get pissed off at the little things 
in
the world because they are 1.) Arrogant and 2.) Ignorant.

Ryan Davis wrote:
> --
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> 
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 14:28 , Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> 
>> Daemons that
>> monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was  
>> happening
>> but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we  
>> get, our
>> total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes  
>> that
>> run Ruby.
> 
> such sophistication and yet you still top-post...


Q: second most annoying thing in email?
A: threads with complaints by people who won't accept they can't stop 
the world from top posting and can't accept that it is not a major 
criminal offense.

I prefer bottom posting too (and Macs, and Fords, and...) -- let it 
go...

-- gw

On Jul 1, 2009, at 14:28, Jordon Bedwell wrote:

> Daemons that
> monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was  
> happening
> but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we  
> get, our
> total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes  
> that
> run Ruby.

I don't understand what this is a response to from my instructions
about how to compile ruby for 64-bit.

Eric Hodel wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2009, at 18:36, Greg Willits wrote:
> 
>> Has anyone built a 64-bit Ruby for Leopard. I've googled my brains  
>> out, but am finding nothing.

> For 1.9 I configured:
> 
> $ LDFLAGS="-arch x86_64" CFLAGS="-arch x86_64 -mmacosx-version-
> min=10.5 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" ./configure


Thanks, I'll give that a try later this week.

-- gw

Greg Willits wrote:
> I prefer bottom posting too (and Macs, and Fords, and...) -- let it 
> go...

(: is cognition human powerful how amazing really It's. Ditto.

Ew, Fords?

Small minds can't cope with diversity.



________________________________
From: Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com>
To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 3:45:08 PM
Subject: Re: 64-bit Ruby for OS X ?

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

On Jul 1, 2009, at 14:28 , Jordon Bedwell wrote:

> I personally won't use anything that isn't under x64.  No offense to people
> who are scared about memory usage but I prefer to be able to address my
> 12GB+ of Ram on each of my servers without needing to hack my Kernel for
> anything more than security, and speed.  I've had no problems with the
> memory the gentleman reported with memory consumption crawling on OSX, BSD
> or Debian so perhaps it's just a bad compile in his behalf? Our Daemons that
> monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was happening
> but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we get, our
> total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes that
> run Ruby.

such sophistication and yet you still top-post...

On 2 Jul 2009, at 00:29, Eric Hodel wrote:
>> OSX, BSD
> I don't understand what this is a response to from my instructions  
> about how to compile ruby for 64-bit.

I think we're supposed to be impressed by the 12+ GB of RAM, or the
~100MB per process for the ruby processes or something like that and
all rush out and recompile for 64 bit.

I'd be interested to know how those servers really benchmark compared
to an x32 core with PAE and the same amount of RAM, but that's just
little old contrarian me.


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason

On 2 Jul 2009, at 01:00, Garry Freemyer wrote:
> Small minds can't cope with diversity.

And top posters have no interest in their contributions being seen in
context.


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason

On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:14:03AM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2009, at 01:00, Garry Freemyer wrote:
>> Small minds can't cope with diversity.
>
> And top posters have no interest in their contributions being seen in  
> context.

I think it's time we start a ruby-top-post list.

On 2 Jul 2009, at 07:31, Aaron Patterson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:14:03AM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
>> On 2 Jul 2009, at 01:00, Garry Freemyer wrote:
>>> Small minds can't cope with diversity.
>>
>> And top posters have no interest in their contributions being seen in
>> context.
>
> I think it's time we start a ruby-top-post list.

Or write a mail client that automatically presents posts in the
preferred style of the user, but always sends them in bottom-post
format ;)


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason

________________________________
From: Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@games-with-brains.com>
To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:49:06 AM
Subject: Re: 64-bit Ruby for OS X ?

On 2 Jul 2009, at 07:31, Aaron Patterson wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:14:03AM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
>>> On 2 Jul 2009, at 01:00, Garry Freemyer wrote:
>>>> Small minds can't cope with diversity.
>>> 
>>> And top posters have no interest in their contributions being seen in
>>> context.
>> 
>> I think it's time we start a ruby-top-post list.

>Or write a mail client that automatically presents posts in the preferred style of the user, but always sends them in bottom-post format ;)


>Ellie

I like that, and it could insert all the > symbols too, so that I don't 
have to insert them myself like the one I have at my disposal.

One gets used to doing things a certain way, or forgetting that others 
prefer bottom or inline posting if one doesn't post much.

I guess I should be aware of what kinds of judgements folks are making 
of me just because their mail client is smarter than mine. On the other 
hand, constantly having to keep in mind that folks are looking for an 
excuse to castigate others, like I did to that other guy, is a 
depressing point of view.

It might be an interesting exercise to write a mail client in ruby that 
could clearly show a visual queue, about who is replying to what, 
probably using > symbols, that is more than just two levels and easier 
to read for those with low vision like me.

Maybe there's a mail client that enforces bottom posting, without making 
the replies hard to separate who said what, and that works on pc and mac 
and can import from Microsoft Oaflook, but I have enough worries and 
troubles being laid off and counting the days till I am living on the 
street.