# Decent banchmark results? **URL:** \ **Category:** Deployment\ **Created:** [March 9, 2007, 8:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330 "2007-03-09T20:13:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 8:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/1 "2007-03-09T20:13:53Z")
Hi again folks! Everything is going really well since I last posted and I’m very close to live deployment! Anyway, I was benchamrking various Nginx + Mongrel cluster configs and came up with what seems like my best performance for a regular Hello Rails page. I was hoping I could get some estimates so I can save the time of having to try out other solutions (ie, Apache+Mongrel, etc, etc). Hardware: Dual dual-core Xeon, 16gb ram, SCSI SAS mirror. Best test results: 6 Nginx and 5 Mongrels were enough to meet this. I tried more and less of both in different combos. I got approx. 215 req/sec +/- over about 5 httperf’s tests with these params: httperf --server 127.0.0.1 --port 80 --uri /say/hello --rate 250 --num- conn 10000 --num-call 1 --timeout 5 I am using Ezra’s latest nginx.conf with the necessary modifications to root directory and mongrel cluster block and it’s all working fine. I really just want to know if this sounds like a correct average. I realize I can do a lot more with this hardware so I plan to do some virtualization as recommended earlier with a hardware load balancer up front. Thanks everyone! Raul ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2007, 9:05pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/2 "2007-03-09T21:05:05Z")
On Mar 9, 2:12 pm, “roller8” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Anyway, I was benchamrking various Nginx + Mongrel cluster configs and > came up with what seems like my best performance for a regular Hello > Rails page. Could you explain what a “regular” Hello Rails page is? 🙂 > Hardware: Dual dual-core Xeon, 16gb ram, SCSI SAS mirror. That’s a lot of hardware. > Best test results: 6 Nginx and 5 Mongrels were enough to meet this. > I tried more and less of both in different combos. I got approx. 215 > req/sec +/- over about 5 httperf’s tests with these params: Those numbers sound a low to me, actually. I’d expect at least 40 page of session creation + rhtml render (no other DB activity) per core, which would be around 320/second. Is the DB on the same box? Was the test running on the same box? I’d recommend you run 8 nginx (1 per core), and 32 mongrels (4 per core). Also, 10,000 concurrent requests seems a bit high, but shouldn’t really affect aggregate perforance. – – Tom M. ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 12:23am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/3 "2007-03-10T00:23:30Z")
Hi Tom, On 3/9/07, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Is the DB on the same box? Was the test running on the same box? > > I’d recommend you run 8 nginx (1 per core), and 32 mongrels (4 per > core). Is ~4 mongrels per core a normal baseline you start with for hardware like that? A site I’m working on will have a simliar setup – 3 web servers with dual dual-core xeons, though with less ram (4 to 8 gigs). This would be behind Apache, though, would that change the recommendation of 4 per core? I plan on doing plenty of tests with http-perf, of course, just looking for a good starting point. - Rob ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 4:08am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/4 "2007-03-10T04:08:48Z")
On Mar 9, 6:22 pm, “Rob S.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Is ~4 mongrels per core a normal baseline you start with for hardware > like that? A site I’m working on will have a simliar setup – 3 web > servers with dual dual-core xeons, though with less ram (4 to 8 gigs). > This would be behind Apache, though, would that change the > recommendation of 4 per core? There’s a general understanding in Unix performance tuning that a load of 4.0, which means that at any moment in time there are 4 processes running or waiting to be scheduled (i.e. in the run queue), is considered saturation. This is a _very_ indirect measurement of exactly what is going on in a system and assumes that those processes are CPU bound, and not bound on other things such as network I/O, disk I/O, etc. So, very simplistically speaking, a good place to start in just about any tuning project is 4 running processes per core. Again, this is an _ultra_ simplistic way of looking at things. In a typical Rails deployment scenario, the front-end web servers are highly unlikely to break a sweat compared to the back-end application servers. Since we’re talking about such a rough measurement and only a place to begin tuning at, I literally wouldn’t even consider the front end processes into this equation. If MySQL is running on the same box, however, that would figure into the equation. Unix system performance tuning is a very complex subject, and it changes all the time. That said, some of the best books written on the subject were written a long time ago, when resources such as CPU cycles, RAM, and disk storage were all scarce and expensive. Here are two of the best books I’ve ever read on the subject, and would highly recommend everyone interested in deployment read: > **[O'Reilly Media - Technology and Business Training](https://www.oreilly.com)** > > Gain technology and business knowledge and hone your skills with learning resources created and curated by O'Reilly's experts: live online training, video, books, our platform has content from 200+ of the world's best publishers. I’d also recommend a book by Adrian Cocroft, which I believe was called Solaris Performance Tuning. I’m _shocked_ to find almost zero references to that book in Google. It was a really great book. If it’s out of print, it makes me want to run to my bookshelf and make sure it’s still around, because it’s a really great book. 🙂 – – Tom M., CTO – Engine Y. ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 3:00am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/5 "2007-03-10T03:00:43Z")
On 3/9/07, Rob S. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > Best test results: 6 Nginx and 5 Mongrels were enough to meet this. > > > I tried more and less of both in different combos. I got approx. 215 > > > req/sec +/- over about 5 httperf’s tests with these params: > > > > Those numbers sound a low to me, actually. Indeed. I can get over 700 dynamic “Hello, World” actions per second with 3 Mongrels on a Dell D620 laptop. My definition of Hello, world is this: class TestsController \< AppliucatrionController session :off def say\_hi render :text =\> ‘Hi!’ end end Note the “session :off” bit - this is very important. Alex ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 4:25am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/6 "2007-03-10T04:25:51Z")
On 3/9/07, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > What’s the point of a test that has so little basis in real world > usage? Are we talking about “hello world”, or real world? 🙂 For real world (Mephisto with page caching off), the same laptop does ~40 req/sec. Without a session creation, you might just as well have served a > static HTML page, which would have returned higher numbers yet. 🙂 True. And that was exactly what I wanted to establish with hello world test - that it’s not much slower than serving static files. Alex ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 4:11am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/7 "2007-03-10T04:11:49Z")
On Mar 9, 8:59 pm, “Alexey V.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > ``` > session :off > def say_hi > render :text => 'Hi!' > end > > ``` > > end > > Note the “session :off” bit - this is very important. What’s the point of a test that has so little basis in real world usage? The idea is to measure realistic performance, not see how large a number you can generate! Without a session creation, you might just as well have served a static HTML page, which would have returned higher numbers yet. 🙂 – – Tom M., CTO – Engine Y. ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 6:44am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/8 "2007-03-10T06:44:00Z")
inline… -Michael [http://javathehutt.blogspot.com](http://javathehutt.blogspot.com) On Mar 9, 2007, at 7:07 PM, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote: > There’s a general understanding in Unix performance tuning that a load > any > > If MySQL is running on the same box, however, that would figure into > the equation. Assuming the scenario with everything running on one box can you elaborate about how MySQL would figure into the equation? At the moment it seems like maybe RAM would be the only factor because ruby seems to be the CPU bottleneck by a long shot. I can’t really even get MySQL to blink. From my testing thusfar (granted not as extensive as I’d like or as you and Ezra have no doubt performed) I don’t see how in a single box environment tuning anything other than the web server process count and ruby/rails is going to make any perf diff. Just curious if I’m way out of line with that thinking. I’m basing my observation on my log file time division where 80-90%+ is spent in ruby compared to 10% or less for MySQL. > Unix system performance tuning is a very complex subject, and it > changes all the time. That said, some of the best books written on the > subject were written a long time ago, when resources such as CPU > cycles, RAM, and disk storage were all scarce and expensive. > > Here are two of the best books I’ve ever read on the subject, and > would highly recommend everyone interested in deployment read: > > [O'Reilly Media - Technology and Business Training](http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/spt/) Thanks for the book recommendations… TIme to go see if it’s in safari so I can read it online 🙂 > Best, -Michael ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 7:05am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/9 "2007-03-10T07:05:02Z")
On Mar 10, 12:42 am, Michael K. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > If MySQL is running on the same box, however, that would figure into > > the equation. > > Assuming the scenario with everything running on one box can you > elaborate about how MySQL would figure into the equation? At the > moment it seems like maybe RAM would be the only factor because ruby > seems to be the CPU bottleneck by a long shot. I can’t really even > get MySQL to blink. Are you using ActiveRecordStore for sessions, or using the default disk based sessions? If you’re writing to disk, it could well be that your disks are limiting your throughput, particularly if you are creating many thousands of files in the same directory, which can have nasty processor punishing performance implications. If you run top while the benchmark is running, what does the header above the process list look like? > From my testing thusfar (granted not as extensive > as I’d like or as you and Ezra have no doubt performed) I don’t see > how in a single box environment tuning anything other than the web > server process count and ruby/rails is going to make any perf diff. > Just curious if I’m way out of line with that thinking. I’m basing my > observation on my log file time division where 80-90%+ is spent in > ruby compared to 10% or less for MySQL. No question you should focus the most on where you spend the most time. But, _why_ are you spending the time where you are? You cannot generally tune anything. If you want really good results, you have to get the tests as close to reality is possible. This is why really good performance tuning guys must have access to production systems. 🙂 – – Tom M., CTO – Engine Y. ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 7:44am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/10 "2007-03-10T07:44:04Z")
On 3/9/07, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > You should be getting closer to > 4 kreq/sec for static files, perhaps even faster on a local system. That’s right, 3.9 kreq/sec it is. I had an error in the httpd.conf. Thanks for the heads-up. Alex ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 5:08am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/11 "2007-03-12T05:08:33Z")
Hmm, I’m a little confused about where I sit in this thread as it’s grown a life of it’s own! 🙂 But I’m glad I get to read through the whole conversation. Lots of insight. OK well my hello world is just a piece of the Instant Gratification chapter at the start of Agile Web Dev. It’s a single controller named “Say” with one action title “hello” and one rhtml template that has a little html and one call to Time.now. Then I use htterf with the params I typed in the original post. My mySQL is sitting over on a different machine (Dell 2950, dual dual core Xdeon with 16gb ram, CentOS 4.4 on a SCSI SAS mirror and the MySQL db’s living on a local Raid 5 SCSI SAS set. So no local DB action. These will all be connected to 1GB switches. So, if I’m benchmarking low are there any clues as to where I could begin looking? Also, I realize that Nginx is supposed to serve up the static content which is really fast. So does that mean that rhtml pages with ruby code, html and images will get partially served by mongrels and Nginx or is it that once we’re in an rhml template that it’s 100% mongrels? Hmm, a bit at a loss here. I’ll benchmark my static html again just to be sure but I’m pretty certain i scored low there too according to your numbers (~4000 req/secs). Raul ----- Original Message ----- From: “removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) To: “Deploying Rails” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 11:16 PM Subject: [Rails-deploy] Re: Decent banchmark results? ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2007, 7:17am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/12 "2007-03-10T07:17:03Z")
On Mar 9, 10:25 pm, “Alexey V.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On 3/9/07, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > What’s the point of a test that has so little basis in real world > > usage? > > Are we talking about “hello world”, or real world? 🙂 🙂 Good point, and a fair statement. “hello world” isn’t real world, that’s true, but it isn’t quite a fairy tale either, which is a little closer to what I’d call a sessionless “hello world.” > Without a session creation, you might just as well have served a > > > static HTML page, which would have returned higher numbers yet. 🙂 > > True. And that was exactly what I wanted to establish with hello world test > > - that it’s not much slower than serving static files. Well, that’s a good testing and interesting in and of itself, but it’s not really fair to post the results of that test as an example of how his results were a bit lower than expected. And, not much slower than serving static files? You should be getting closer to 4 kreq/sec for static files, perhaps even faster on a local system. Here’s a static test of a single Engine Y. slice, from another slice, over gigabit ethernet. ey00-s00070 ~ # ab2 -n 5000 -c 4 [http://www.engineyard.com/404.html](http://www.engineyard.com/404.html) This is ApacheBench, Version 2.0.40-dev \<$Revision: 1.146 $\> apache-2.0 Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, [http://www.zeustech.net/](http://www.zeustech.net/) Copyright 2006 The Apache Software Foundation, [http://www.apache.org/](http://www.apache.org/) Benchmarking 10.0.128.71 (be patient) Completed 500 requests Completed 1000 requests Completed 1500 requests Completed 2000 requests Completed 2500 requests Completed 3000 requests Completed 3500 requests Completed 4000 requests Completed 4500 requests Finished 5000 requests Server Software: nginx/0.4.13 Server Hostname: 10.0.128.71 Server Port: 80 Document Path: /404.html Document Length: 619 bytes Concurrency Level: 4 Time taken for tests: 1.179527 seconds Complete requests: 5000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 4150000 bytes HTML transferred: 3095000 bytes Requests per second: 4238.99 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 0.944 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 0.236 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 3435.28 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 0.1 0 3 Processing: 0 0 1.0 0 32 Waiting: 0 0 1.0 0 31 Total: 0 0 1.1 0 32 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 0 66% 0 75% 0 80% 0 90% 1 95% 1 98% 1 99% 1 100% 32 (longest request) – – Tom M. ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 5:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/13 "2007-03-12T17:47:08Z")
What is you sessions storage config? If you didn’t do anything explicitly, sessions are persisted as files in ./tmp/sessions, and that’s slow. Alex Verkhovsky ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 6:46am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/14 "2007-03-12T06:46:41Z")
On Mar 12, 12:08 am, Roller8 [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > So, if I’m benchmarking low are there any clues as to where I could begin > looking? Just the ones already mentioned above. Have you adjust the number of mongrels per machine, and are you using ActiveRecordStore for sessions? Don’t forget that increasing the number of mongrels will require a change to nginx.conf… > Also, I realize that Nginx is supposed to serve up the static > content which is really fast. So does that mean that rhtml pages with ruby > code, html and images will get partially served by mongrels and Nginx or is > it that once we’re in an rhml template that it’s 100% mongrels? In your configuration it looks like nginx is involved in every requests, and handled static content all by itself, with no mongrel involvement. For dynamic content, such as your benchmark, nginx takes the request, but proxies back to mongrel for each request. > Hmm, a bit at a loss here. I’ll benchmark my static html again just to be > sure but I’m pretty certain i scored low there too according to your numbers > (~4000 req/secs). 4k req/sec is for static content only. I’m sure you’d see similar if not higher number for your configuration. – – Tom M., CTO – Engine Y. ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 6:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/15 "2007-03-12T18:38:17Z")
OK, well I haven’t reached that point yet but I’ve noted this. Thanks for the information. Also, I think I may have had too many nginx processes running for my machine. I left 6 from Ezra’s config but I’ve moved it to 4, one for each processor for now. Early benchmarks show an improvement of about 260 req/sec but I think there’s still some tweaking that needs to be done before I even start tweaking the app with caching and stuff. I’m sure I’m missing something somewhere. Tom, I’m also moving to 4 mongrels per CPU to see where that takes me. Oh, and lastly, I’m using the hugemem kernel (Linux 2.6.9-42.0.10.ELhugemem). I wonder if I should try the regular smp kernel for this? I guess I will try it out anyway. Raul On Mar 12, 8:39 am, “Alexey V.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 7:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/16 "2007-03-12T19:22:25Z")
On 3/12/07, roller8 [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > some tweaking that needs to be done before I even start tweaking the > app with caching and stuff. I’m sure I’m missing something somewhere. Well, if you haven’t done anything with sessions, I would bet my 2 cents that session persistence through file system is your current bottleneck. At least, it was for many people in a similar stage. The typical price of it, if I remember correctly, is around 20 to 30 msec per request, and it just keeps on growing. Alex ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 10:42pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/17 "2007-03-12T22:42:54Z")
Yes I think that was a definite problem. I had tons of files in my tmp sessions too that I’ve since cleared. I’m now switched to ActiveRecordStore even though I don’t yet have any DB access going on. I’ll be reporting back within minutes my new results. Raul ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 9:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/18 "2007-03-12T21:46:41Z")
On Mar 12, 1:37 pm, “roller8” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: If reducing mongrels improved your score on that box, then it’s almost certainly using disk based sessions. Fewer mongrels means less disk thrashing… > Tom, I’m also moving to 4 mongrels per CPU to see where that takes > me. That’s 4 mongrels per _core_. > Oh, and lastly, I’m using the hugemem kernel (Linux > 2.6.9-42.0.10.ELhugemem). I wonder if I should try the regular smp > kernel for this? I guess I will try it out anyway. You’re going to get far better results by checking your session config and reporting back to us… If you switch to DB backed sessions with ActiveRecordStore, which is very easy, you’re likely going to see a major performance increase. – – Tom M., CTO ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 11:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/19 "2007-03-12T23:22:06Z")
OK I’m now running 4 nginx and 16 mongrels (4 per core) and getting 420 to 450 req/sec. So I think that may sound a little more proper for the hardware I’m running then? ---
**Author:** ![roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@roller8](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/roller8)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2007, 10:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330/20 "2007-03-17T22:00:01Z")
Yes! That’s it exactly. I’m surprised the Google didn’t help me out on that one. 🙂 Sorry for the mis-reference, everyone! [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/decent-banchmark-results/88330.md?page=2)