Is drb much slower than memcached?

I do some test, surprising to find seeming to access drb much slower
than
access memcached.

If it’s true, should we use more memcached directly than drb based
things
(like backgrounddrb) in scale situation ?

Before the test, I can’t decide whether to do(such as get/set global
data
operations) in drb/backgrounddrb or just access memcached in
actioncontrollers.

I have thought of that doing save(or some read) operations in
drb/backgroundrb asynchronous will improve the performance highly.

Hope for your idea, thank you.

water

The test:

?summary?
just loop 100 times doing a simple action with drb & memcached, see how
long
they will take.

?background?
ruby 1.8.4 (2006-04-14) [i386-mswin32]
Rails 1.1.6
memcache-client-1.0.3
Distributed Ruby: dRuby version 2.0.4 # from
ruby/lib/rub/1.8/drb/drb.rb

?begin?

RAILS_ROOT/config/enviroments/development.rb

new drb object here to ensure just new it once at the beginning

require ‘drb’
DRb.start_service()
DRB_OBJ = DRbObject.new(nil, ‘druby://localhost:9000’)

In a simple actioncontroller

class TestController < ApplicationController
def test
start_time = Time.now.to_f
100.times do
DRB_OBJ.doNothingInSide() # just invoke a simple drb function, do
nothing inside
end
end_time = Time.now.to_f
flash[‘tm2’] = sprintf(“DRB access take (%0.9f)”, end_time -
start_time)

log the duration to show in view

start_time = Time.now.to_f
100.times do
  Cache::put('test', {'test' => 'just test'}) # just set the 

memcached
through memcache-client’s put method
end
end_time = Time.now.to_f
flash[‘tm1’] = sprintf(“Memcache access take (%0.9f)”, end_time -
start_time) # log the duration to show in view
end
end

In the simple view

tm1=#<%=flash['tm1']%>#

tm2=#<%=flash['tm2']%>#

run & see the results

tm1=#Memcache access take (0.546000004)
tm2=#DRB access take (3.141000032)

The running results different every time, but all show memcached much
faster
than drb access.

Hi-

YEah memcached is pure C and is very fast. DRb is a bit slower for

caching. Backgroundrb has caching features but I recommend you use
memcached for scalable cache. Backgroundrb is more for the worker
classes then for caching.

Cheers-
-Ezra

Using Eventmachie and MemCache…i am on verge of phasing
out…backgroundrb.

I am not sure, if it is such a nice decision.but turns out pretty fast
and since i developed it…I can be little bit sure about it.

The flipside is…i use TCPSocket to pass messages to the background
daemons.

On 9/26/06, Ezra Z. [email protected] wrote:

-Ezra

If it’s true, should we use more memcached directly than drb based

require ‘drb’
nothing inside
through memcache-client’s put method


There was only one Road; that it was like a great river: its springs
were at every doorstep, and every path was its tributary.

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs