Re: Threads and Ruby
- From: Zhukov Pavel <gelios@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:25:34 -0500
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Joel VanderWerf
<vjoel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
barjunk wrote:
I've been hunting around for information regarding threads, and to me,
it seems confusing and conflicting.
What I'm trying to find out is...if I was going to start using threads
in Ruby, which version of Ruby should I be using.
I've seen folks say that I should use Ruby 1.9 and others say that it
is possible to use earlier versions. Nothing that I found seemed
definitive.
I'm new to all this, so this may be part of the problem.
What I'd like to accomplish is starting a main ruby instance, then
launch threads from that instance that run in their own sandbox.
At this point, I don't believe the threads need to talk with each
other, but it seems I could use some form of message passing to
accomplish this.
Any ideas and direction would be helpful. Thanks.
Mike B.
I haven't used 1.9 much, but the impression I get is:
- use 1.9 if you need _native_ threads (e.g. to take advantage of multiple
processors, or blocking system calls)
- use 1.8 if you want in-process threads, which are lighter and pretty good
for multiplexing io calls (using select()).
If the threads don't need shared state, why not use fork instead of threads?
You can use DRb for IPC.
--
vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407
really advantage on multiply processors? Ruby 1.9 does't use GIL???
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Threads and Ruby
- From: Joel VanderWerf
- Re: Threads and Ruby
- References:
- Threads and Ruby
- From: barjunk
- Re: Threads and Ruby
- From: Joel VanderWerf
- Threads and Ruby
- Prev by Date: Re: Threads and Ruby
- Next by Date: Re: Threads and Ruby
- Previous by thread: Re: Threads and Ruby
- Next by thread: Re: Threads and Ruby
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|