From: Brent Roman Date: 2007-12-22T17:10:06+09:00 Subject: Re: Experimental PATCH to improve thread performance Charles Oliver Nutter-2 wrote: > > > I'd love to know what broke in JRuby. I tried both benchmarks and > they're very snappy on my machine. We're making a big push to get JRuby > threading solid, so please let us know what you've seen. > > I'd like to work with you on this after the holidays. In the meantime, I've attached a java backtrace of the failure in our dreaded "killer app" Let me know if you can glean anything from it that will help me create a simple test case for you. http://www.nabble.com/file/p14467248/jruby-1.1b1.backtrace jruby-1.1b1.backtrace By the way, The benchmark numbers I see here are very consistent with your claim that JRuby is faster than Ruby 1.8.6. In this case, it's a lot faster: Unpatched 1.8.6 Patched 1.8.6 JRuby 1.1b1 Ruby 1.9 Bench #1 22sec / 16 MB 4sec / 7 MB 3.5sec / 21 MB 0.06sec Bench #2 35sec / 10 MB 15sec / 7 MB 2.8sec / 17 MB 0.36sec I realize that these numbers penalize JRuby for its JVM start up delay, but, even so, it's clear that when Ruby 1.9 is finally ready, it will be the horse to beat ;-) Note that I had to patch my version of 1.9 to implement Thread.critical= to run benchmark #2. This is quite straightforward as long as the global interpreter lock continues to exist. I'm surprised that JRuby accepts Thread.critical=. How did JRuby implement this atop a JVM? - brent -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Experimental-PATCH-to-improve-thread-performance-tp14409855p14467248.html Sent from the ruby-core mailing list archive at Nabble.com.