Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The benchmark was done using REE. Out of curiousity, I tried it with MRI 1.8.7, MRI 1.9.2, and REE 1.8.7. Results are best out of three:

                    user     system      total        real
  rails3-1.9.2  2.240000   0.200000   2.440000 (  3.127072)
  rails2-ree    2.530000   0.290000   2.820000 (  3.578471)
  rails2-1.8.7  2.920000   0.210000   3.130000 (  3.876215)
  rails3-ree    3.140000   0.250000   3.390000 (  4.111465)
  rails3-1.8.7  3.560000   0.220000   3.780000 (  4.505166)
Of course, the author was looking into a specific problem — this doesn't mean that Rails 3 on MRI 1.9.2 is faster than Rails 3 on REE.

Run on an iMac9,1 with a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo. uname -a:

Darwin Roy.local 10.7.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.7.0: Sat Jan 29 15:17:16 PST 2011; root:xnu-1504.9.37~1/RELEASE_I386 i386

I disabled spotlight, but who knows what other processes might have spawned in the middle of the benchmark. Your mileage may vary.




1.9.2 has some slow startup problems with rails 3 -- I don't believe your benchmark measures startup time.


Not sure why this was downvoted.

In 1.9.2 (p180 and head), my rails 3 application starts in 26 seconds.

With REE 1.8.7, it starts in 8 seconds or so.


It's aimed at an issue with ActiveRecord. Like I said, it doesn't mean that Rails 3 on MRI 1.9.2 is faster than Rails 3 on REE.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not the author of the linked post or the benchmark.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: