Live data from Hacker News

Rails 3 Performance - Not Good Enough

blog.tstmedia.com

141–142 of 142 posts

Re: Rails 3 Performance - Not Good Enough

#141
post #135
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea where you get 400ms on average. Here's the log for a blog post page of my site. It's a heavy and big page, it's on ruby 1.8.7 and rails 3, and I haven't done anything to make it faster. I could cache most of it rather easily. Completed 200 OK in 205ms (Views: 168.9ms | ActiveRecord: 23.2ms | Sphinx: 9.6ms) edit: a couple of notes. This is running on a cheap vps and would be faster on a real server. It…

? If you read the article, you can see that after their upgrade, the average time spent in ruby per page is 400ms.

It sounded to me as if you believed this was typical for a rails site. Maybe I read it wrong, but it isn't typical for a rails app that I've ever done.

Re: Rails 3 Performance - Not Good Enough

#142
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just tested this on one of my apps (yakkstr.com) and 'rails c' and 'rails s' both startup in about 5 seconds. I'm on 1.8.7 and rails 3, not sure if that makes a difference, but 20-30 seconds doesn't mesh with my experience at all. I'm on a 2.66 GHZ i5 imac, not an SSD.

Would you mind testing out https://github.com/joevandyk/slow-rails and see how long 'rake' takes to run? For me on 1.8.7, it takes about 7-8 seconds. Annoying because the application is empty, it's just 28 gems being loaded. On 1.9.2, it's 20 seconds or so.

http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/3924
Post reply on HN