From: Aredridel <aredridel@...>
Date: 2005-03-31T01:04:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Poor efficency of Ruby...

On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 20:54 +0900, JZ wrote:
> Dnia Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:23:58 +0900, David Heinemeier Hansson napisał(a):
> 
> > Rails does a bunch of start-up magic that makes CGI whole-fully 
> > unsuitable for anything more than asserting that it works. 
> 
> Is it not strange? CGI PHP works quite fast. CGI adapter for pythonic
> applications server Webware works even very fast. What's wrong with Ruby
> and CGI? If it is so unuitable there should be warnings not to use CGI for
> Rails at all. I set up first simple Rails using examples from the web. Why
> every request consumes 100% of my AthlonXP 2800+ and takes so meny seconds?
> I have enough RAM, fast (RAID stripe) disks.
> 
> It is a pity there is no binary version of mod_ruby for win32. I can find
> only source tarballs. :( 

Comparing apples to oranges.

PHP is lightning fast to parse: It's parser-friendly first, and
human-friendly second. Python the same. Any use of Ruby where you parse
on every step will be a bit slower than PHP or Python for identical
code. (I have an easier time optimizing Ruby cleanly though....)

Comparing a tiny stub for a persistent app process to the whole Rails
app is apples to oranges, too. A fair comparison of Ruby to Webware
would likely be to compare IOWA using the CGI stub to Webware using the
CGI stub.

If you set up Rails as a FastCGI process, you'll see the parsing penalty
go away largely. You should be able to find mod_fastcgi or mod_fcgid for
windows apache without too much trouble, and as far as I know, lighttpd
runs on Windows too.

If you're seeing 100% CPU usage for several seconds, though, that
doesn't sound right. Even CGI isn't that bad in my experience. You might
do a little profiling to see where it spends its time.

Ari