5 ms·
We have a setup that is fairly similar to yours (large Rails 3.2.15 app, Passenger, New Relic) and we recently experienced the same as you did - just in the opp
by joerichsen 13y ago
We have a setup that is fairly similar to yours (large Rails 3.2.15 app, Passenger, New Relic) and we recently experienced the same as you did - just in the opposite direction!
What happened is that average response time fell from 415ms to 255ms and across the board everything was faster. This Friday I upgraded ruby on our servers from 1.9.3-p327 to 1.9.3-p448 and that triggered the speedup.
Ruby was installed using rbenv/ruby-build and my guess is that the new version was compiled using compiler optimization flags whereas the old one for some reason was not.
Might be worth investigating :-)
- wbharding 13y agoWe didn't change our Ruby version. We changed as little as possible overall to make the comparison "apples-to-apples." Getting a performance increase during an upgrade would be a highly welcomed change in our world.
- krisdol 13y agoI'm not suggesting that you upgrade to 2.0, or anything drastic, but does this mean you don't install the security updates? Build 448 included important OpenSSL fixes, and no functional changes or deprecations occur during these minor upgrades.
- kawsper 13y agoYou should upgrade to build 484 because of this: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/11/22/heap-overflow-in-floating-point-parsing-cve-2013-4164/ https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/11/22/heap-overflow-i...