[#10209] Market for XML Web stuff — Matt Sergeant <matt@...>

I'm trying to get a handle on what the size of the market for AxKit would be

15 messages 2001/02/01

[#10238] RFC: RubyVM (long) — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2001/02/01
[#10364] Re: RFC: RubyVM (long) — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2001/02/05

[#10708] Suggestion for threading model — Stephen White <spwhite@...>

I've been playing around with multi-threading. I notice that there are

11 messages 2001/02/11

[#10853] Re: RubyChangeRequest #U002: new proper name for Hash#indexes, Array#indexes — "Mike Wilson" <wmwilson01@...>

10 messages 2001/02/14

[#11037] to_s and << — "Brent Rowland" <tarod@...>

list = [1, 2.3, 'four', false]

15 messages 2001/02/18

[#11094] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

12 messages 2001/02/19

[#11131] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Robert Feldt wrote:

10 messages 2001/02/19

[#11251] Programming Ruby is now online — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

36 messages 2001/02/21

[#11469] XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig)

23 messages 2001/02/24
[#11490] Re: XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig) 2001/02/24

Michael Neumann <neumann@s-direktnet.de> wrote:

[#11491] Negative Reviews for Ruby and Programming Ruby — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2001/02/24

Hi all:

[#11633] RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

13 messages 2001/02/26

[#11652] RE: RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

I like it!

14 messages 2001/02/27

[#11700] Starting Once Again — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

OK, I'm starting again with Ruby. I'm just assuming that I've

31 messages 2001/02/27
[#11712] RE: Starting Once Again — "Aaron Hinni" <aaron@...> 2001/02/27

> 2. So far I think running under TextPad will be better than running

[#11726] Re: Starting Once Again — Aleksi Niemel<zak@...> 2001/02/28

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Aaron Hinni wrote:

[ruby-talk:10901] Re: /bin/sh script beats pants off ruby script

From: behrends@... (Reimer Behrends)
Date: 2001-02-15 14:40:02 UTC
List: ruby-talk #10901
greg strockbine (gstrock@pacbell.net) wrote:
> why is ruby so damn slow?
> 
> I don't understand this.  I rewrote a /bin/sh script in
> ruby and the sh script runs much faster.  I ran the script on 
> both Linux and Solaris.  The script removes a symlink and 
> replaces it with a copy of the linked to file.  

You are essentially matching /bin/cp against ruby's File.syscopy routine
(written in ruby), not sh against ruby.

> The ruby script took 20 seconds and the sh script took 7
> seconds.  I don't remember the file size.   I don't understand
> the difference.  The sh script looks so sloppy.

For what it's worth, I can't quite reproduce your numbers. While ruby is
(naturally, we have some overhead) a bit slower than /bin/cp, it's not
nearly by that much. Remember that when you're working on UNIX,
benchmarking file operations can be extremely tricky. For instance:

* The disk cache is going to throw everything off entirely. If the
  file has been read/copied before, chances are that it is still
  cached in memory, and will take only a fraction of the time to
  read again.

* Conversely, writing the file may be miraculously fast, but unless
  you add a sync right after the last write, you will have zero
  reliable information as to how long _that_ takes.

* Networked filesystems add another huge question mark.

Essentially, to benchmark file system operations, you will have at
the very least to start with a freshly booted system and take a
few precautions to make sure that you actually measure what you
want to measure. And without further information, it's really not
possible to tell exactly what went wrong. As I mentioned above,
I cannot reproduce those discrepancies.

			Reimer Behrends

In This Thread