[#64703] Add `Hash#fetch_at` (issue #10017) — Wojtek Mach <wojtek@...>
Hey guys
1 message
2014/09/01
[#64711] [ruby-trunk - Bug #10193] [Closed] TestIO#test_readpartial_locktmp fails randomly — nobu@...
Issue #10193 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada.
3 messages
2014/09/02
[#64744] [ruby-trunk - Bug #10202] [Open] TestBenchmark#test_realtime_output breaks on ARM — v.ondruch@...
Issue #10202 has been reported by Vit Ondruch.
3 messages
2014/09/03
[#64823] documenting constants — Xavier Noria <fxn@...>
I am writing a Rails guide about constant autoloading in Ruby on
5 messages
2014/09/07
[#64838] [ruby-trunk - Bug #10212] [Open] MRI is not for lambda calculus — ko1@...
Issue #10212 has been reported by Koichi Sasada.
6 messages
2014/09/08
[#64858] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #10212] [Open] MRI is not for lambda calculus
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/09/08
rb_env_t may use a flexible array, helps a little even on my busy system:
[#64871] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #10212] [Open] MRI is not for lambda calculus
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2014/09/08
(2014/09/08 19:48), Eric Wong wrote:
[#64972] [ruby-trunk - Bug #10231] [Open] Process.detach(pid) defines new singleton classes every call — headius@...
Issue #10231 has been reported by Charles Nutter.
3 messages
2014/09/11
[#64980] [ruby-trunk - Bug #10212] MRI is not for lambda calculus — ko1@...
Issue #10212 has been updated by Koichi Sasada.
4 messages
2014/09/12
[#65142] [ruby-trunk - Feature #10267] [Open] Number of processors — akr@...
Issue #10267 has been reported by Akira Tanaka.
4 messages
2014/09/20
[#65144] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #10267] [Open] Number of processors
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/09/20
akr@fsij.org wrote:
[#65210] [ruby-trunk - misc #10278] [Assigned] [RFC] st.c: use ccan linked list — nobu@...
Issue #10278 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada.
3 messages
2014/09/22
[ruby-core:64876] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9800] Ship 2.1.2 with GC_HEAP_OLDOBJECT_LIMIT_FACTOR of 1.3
From:
alexandre@...
Date:
2014-09-08 22:57:48 UTC
List:
ruby-core #64876
Issue #9800 has been updated by Alexandre Riveira. File 1-committed_as-ruby-2.0.jpg added File 2-committed_as-ruby-2.1jpg added File 3-committed_as-ruby-2.1-factor-1.3.jpg added The following charts 32bit linux server with 64gb 100 puma aplications and rails 2.3.11. The first chart contains ruby 2.0, the second ruby 2.1 and the third ruby 2.1 with GC_HEAP_OLDOBJECT_LIMIT_FACTOR = 1.3. I dispose doing tests with ruby with other values for GC_HEAP_OLDOBJECT_LIMIT_FACTOR as 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, etc. Performance for me was not affected. My test is to do something like: 1.upto (100_000) do | i | MyModel.find (i) end In parallel check if the system crashes or is slow. With ruby 2.0 is slow, even with ruby 2.1 not the 1.3 FACTOR. To perform the above test have to make the change suggested by Eric Wong at #10009. ---------------------------------------- Bug #9800: Ship 2.1.2 with GC_HEAP_OLDOBJECT_LIMIT_FACTOR of 1.3 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9800#change-48739 * Author: Sam Saffron * Status: Feedback * Priority: Normal * Assignee: * Category: * Target version: next minor * ruby -v: 2.1.1 * Backport: 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Many users are complaining about memory bloat in 2.1 series of Ruby As denoted in https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9607 there is an excellent plan by ko1 to address this. In the mean time I suggest we reduce GC_HEAP_OLDOBJECT_LIMIT_FACTOR to 1.3 which effectively means that instead of memory doubling it only increases by 1.5x or so over 2.0 series. It is great we have the setting, but the reality is that most users will not want to play with this. ---Files-------------------------------- 1-committed_as-ruby-2.0.jpg (21.2 KB) 2-committed_as-ruby-2.1jpg (22.5 KB) 3-committed_as-ruby-2.1-factor-1.3.jpg (22.6 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/