On 5/27/07, ara.t.howard <ara.t.howard / gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Sy Ys wrote:
> > Ezra Zygmuntowicz wrote:
> >>   Yeah I have the best luck with backgroundrb when I run a set number
> >> of immortal workers that just loop and pull jobs from a queue.
> >
> > How is this different from B? Why would rq be necessary for this?
> >
>
> it wouldn't be.  i'll be bundling rq for rails in the next week or
> two.  one advantage (i think) is that rq is durable across machine
> reboots and also allows commandline interaction.  it's a different
> beast than backgrounddrb though.

For the first proof of concept for the project I am currently working on,
I took the easy route of spawning a backgroundrb worker for each task
request.  That, of course, ran into issues as the number of jobs grew
(in that case, running on a 1.? GHz/1GB laptop was after a couple of
dozen tasks.  For the prototype I am currently building, I am using rq
for both of those reasons and to simply scale across several machines
(currently, I am farming the tasks out to 6 machines).