Zed Shaw wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 18:12 +0900, ara.t.howard / noaa.gov wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Zed Shaw wrote:
>> 
>> > Howdy Folks,
>> >
>> > This release is after painstaking analysis of a memory leak that was
>> > reported by Bradley Taylor, reduced by myself, and then fixed after much
>> > work.  You should all thank Bradley for finding the bizarre fix.
> 
>> 
>> if you are really serious about fixing your leak i suggest you re-work your
>> tests.  as i mentioned before they have several race conditions, not least of
>> which that they both start a random number of threads, not 1000 as the code
>> suggests (you can easily confirm by printing out the number of times the
>> thread init loop executes).  further, sync.rb is the single ruby lib i've had
>> memory issues with on production systems.  i have never managed to figure out
>> why that is...
> 
> Ara, this is uncool.  Seriously man, don't e-mail me personally and then
> e-mail the list the exact same e-mail.  Pick one and fight your battle
> there.

Maybe he simply cc'd you on the reply to the list?  I doubt it was a 
personal attack.  At worst, probably a mistake.  He's trying to be 
helpful.

> As I mentioned to you before, the evidence shows you are wrong.  Sure
> you've cooked up a script that has a memory leak with Sync, but that
> script doesn't operate the way Mongrel does.  The sample I developed
> does operate the way Mongrel does.  It's called a "bug reduction".  I'm
> not going to test the leak in Mongrel with a reduction that doesn't
> simulate Mongrel.

I think the point here is that it isn't necessarily Sync/Mutex/Ruby, but 
the way you use it.  He managed to show Mutex leaking, you managed to 
show Sync leaking.  And you eached managed to show neither of them 
leaking.

> With graphs even Ara!  Graphs!  We ran these tests for 30-40 minutes 
> with
> hundreds of thousands of threads being cycled during the tests.

Graphs don't make it true.

> Not to mention about 8 other people switching to Sync report their leaks 
> fixed,
> our own test script showing it's fixed, Mongrel tests showing it's 
> fixed,
> several other frameworks showing it, and you can't argue with the 
> evidence.

This has only been tested for a day.  There's still huge possibilities 
that what you're seeing isn't what you think you're seeing.  We've all 
made that mistake more than once.

> If your script has a leak then fine, just don't do that.  Ultimately 
> though the
> ruby lang guys need to fix this because either way, there's leaks.  For 
> now,
> Mongrel is not leaking and I'm happy with that.
> 
> Now, I'd appreciate it if you'd maybe spend your energy looking into the 
> ruby
> source to find this leak rather than bothering me about it.
> 
> Thank you.

He's doing the same thing you are.  Trying to expose the leak for what 
it is.  You can't go telling him to 'fix ruby' rather than bother the 
list when you've done the same thing he has, just a day earlier.  He's 
submitting the information he has collected so others can try to figure 
this out as well.

None of this is a personal attack.  Nobody has said you didn't fix a 
leak.  There simply may be more going on here than anybody has seen yet.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.