From: Pete Hodgson <ruby-forum@...>
Date: 2009-05-10T06:21:11+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby memory usage

Bill Kelly wrote:
> From: "Pete Hodgson" <ruby-forum@thepete.net>
>>
>> ruby -v gives:
>> ruby 1.8.6 (2008-06-20 patchlevel 230) [i386-linux]
> 
> patchlevel 230 was one of the bad ones.  It leaks like a sieve.
> 
> See [ruby-core] thread:
> 
> [Ruby 1.8 - Bug #216] Memory leaks in 1.8.6p230 and p238
> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/17571
> 
> It affected a whole range of patchlevels:
> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/17596
> 
> 
> Also, a leak of similar severity was introduced later on, starting
> in p296 lasting at least through p355:
> 
> [ruby-core:22582] Re: [Bug #1223] Memory leak reintroduced in 1.8.6 
> branch?
> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/22852
> 
> I'd recommend trying the recent official 1.8.6 release, p368
> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/332578
> 
> I have not personally tried p368 on my long-running servers, as
> I had already found a stable version, p279.  So I have not had a
> need to upgrade the version.  I can say that p279 is very stable
> in its memory profile.  I'm guessing the official p368 release
> probably is too.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Bill


Great info Bill, thanks so much. I'll try building 1.8.6-p368 and see if 
the same component exhibits different behaviour running under that 
build.

Assuming that helps, does anyone have any pointers on putting a 
non-standard ruby rpm onto a centOS box? My company use centos in 
production and I'm betting that my Ops guys will want an rpm, official 
or otherwise.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.