From: Bob Hutchison Date: 2006-08-26T23:22:05+09:00 Subject: Re: [ANN] Mongrel 0.3.13.4 Pre-Release -- Ruby's LEAK Fixed (Death To Mutex!) On Aug 26, 2006, at 5:12 AM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote: > in any case, i'd carefully examine your tests (or the rails code if > that is > indeed what it's modeled after) to make sure that they test > Mutex/Sync/Thread/Ruby and not your os virtual memory system and > look closely > at the results again - like i said, i have had issues with sync.rb. > > the point here is that it is probably the code in question and not > Mutex per > se that was causing your process to grow in vmsize. > I ran your test on OS/X looking at VSZ and RSS. And, like you, initially got Sync with no leak visible, and mutex with what looks like a bad leak. However, I notice that you only called GC once. I have a years old habit of always running GC at least three times when I really wanted GC to run (and in Java I had a loop that ran GC until it stopped freeing stuff which in some cases was eight or nine times). Superstition? Apparently not. On OS X, when I run GC three times neither sync nor mutex show a memory leak. Zed, just for fun, try running GC a few times in a row (like GC.start; GC.start; GC.start) . Cheers, Bob ---- Bob Hutchison -- blogs at Recursive Design Inc. -- Raconteur -- xampl for Ruby --