# Ror has problems with memory usage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [April 24, 2006, 9:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-has-problems-with-memory-usage/58686 "2006-04-24T21:08:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![perherman](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@perherman](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/perherman)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 9:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-has-problems-with-memory-usage/58686/1 "2006-04-24T21:08:17Z")
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](http://modxcms.com/forums/index.php/topic,3927.0.html) ---
**Author:** ![perherman](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@perherman](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/perherman)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 11:12am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-has-problems-with-memory-usage/58686/2 "2006-04-25T11:12:16Z")
Tom M. wrote: > Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![perherman](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@perherman](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/perherman)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 10:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ror-has-problems-with-memory-usage/58686/3 "2006-04-24T22:41:54Z")
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.