Forum: Ruby on Rails Ror has problems with memory usage??

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.
Per-olof H. (Guest)
on 2006-04-24 23:08
I saw this on a forum for MODx (a CMS which seem very good, built on
standards, with clean XHTML/CSS, using PHP).

"RoR is a killer application, but is either a crusher when it comes to
memory usage or SQL usage. Even simple seeming things can kill a server
if it's not dedicated to the application. In addition, RoR is much more
complex really than MODx if you're not accustomed to programming in Ruby
... you've got to go through build sessions and so forth. Admittedly,
it's not a difficult thing to pick up and ActiveRecord makes complex
things easy to accomplish. It's very powerful. But the reality is that
they're like comparing apples and oranges right now."

I agree that it is comparing apples and oranges, but my concern is with
words "RoR --- is either a crusher when it comes to memory usage or SQL
usage"

I have not seen anywhere that memory usage should be a problem for
RoR-built sites.

Can anyone knowledgeable comment, please!

Per-Olof


Here is a link to the forum entry:

http://modxcms.com/forums/index.php/topic,3927.0.html
Tom M. (Guest)
on 2006-04-25 00:41
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 24, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Per-Olof H. wrote:

>> in Ruby
> usage"
This is true only in that it's easy to create SQL hungry applications
with RoR since you rarely see the SQL.

This is largely attributable to getting to know how RoR does its work.
With 1.1's improved ability to fetch relationships via joins, this is
less and less of a worry.

Watch the development logs, and there are no mysteries. :-)

As for memory usage, I just don't see it as a problem. I understand
there have been some leaks in the past (and no doubt new ones to come
in the future) and Ruby has some "interesting" garbage collection
behavior, but with RoR's increasing visibility (and, therefore, Ruby's),
these currently minor issues *will* be fixed.

I find it fascinating that PHP requires a caching accelerator or
FCGI, and Perl requires mod_perl or FCGI to run as efficiently as RoR
production mode (via FCGI!), but everyone talks about how slow RoR is.
Seems to me they should say, "Wow, those RoR guys got THAT right the
first time!"

Ruby is a bit slower than PHP or Perl on many tasks, due to the nature
of the current implementation of the runtime engine. These issues are
being majorly addressed in the 2.0 timeframe (I have no idea *when*
that is) and projects like cRuby look to take Ruby core language
development and application deployment to the point where speed is
simply not an issue.

Don't get caught up in the FUD. Ruby is plenty fast for anyone now, and
will be more than fast enough for everyone soon. :-)

Remember! Amazon, Yahoo, Google, etc. were developed almost 10 years
ago. Do you remember how "slow" the HARDWARE was then? RoR today is
certainly faster than almost anything available at the time, and those
guys did just fine. :-)

--
-- Tom M.
Per-olof H. (Guest)
on 2006-04-25 13:12
Tom M. wrote:
>
Thanks!
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.