64-bit Ruby for OS X ?

[Greg Willits]

Has anyone built a 64-bit Ruby for Leopard. I've googled my brains out,
but am finding nothing.

I'm using 1.8.6 right now, but I could start testing 1.9.x if necessary.

I need it for pure Ruby projects to work on some large data aggregation
tasks that are whacking the 4GB RAM limit.

-- gw

 

[Eric Hodel]

Has anyone built a 64-bit Ruby for Leopard. I've googled my brains
out,
but am finding nothing.

I'm using 1.8.6 right now, but I could start testing 1.9.x if
necessary.

I need it for pure Ruby projects to work on some large data
aggregation
tasks that are whacking the 4GB RAM limit.

Read:

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/building/building.html#/
/apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001064-CH208-BHCHDAFB

For 1.9 I configured:

$ LDFLAGS="-arch x86_64" CFLAGS="-arch x86_64 -mmacosx-version-
min=10.5 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" ./configure

(ignore the error from fuse, it seems configure doesn't use CFLAGS
there)

`make test` finishes most tests, `make test-all` fails with a missing
encoding (maybe iconv isn't compiled 64-bit?)

The built ruby is 64-bit though:

$ ./ruby -ve 'p 1.size'
ruby 1.9.1p129 (2009-05-12 revision 23412) [i386-darwin9.7.0]
8

Compared to Apple ruby:

$ ruby -ve 'p 1.size'
ruby 1.8.6 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 287) [universal-darwin9.0]
4

I imagine the same configure flags would work for 1.8.

 

[Jordon Bedwell]

I personally won't use anything that isn't under x64. No offense to people
who are scared about memory usage but I prefer to be able to address my
12GB+ of Ram on each of my servers without needing to hack my Kernel for
anything more than security, and speed. I've had no problems with the
memory the gentleman reported with memory consumption crawling on OSX, BSD
or Debian so perhaps it's just a bad compile in his behalf? Our Daemons that
monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was happening
but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we get, our
total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes that
run Ruby.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Hodel [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:16 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: 64-bit Ruby for OS X ?

Has anyone built a 64-bit Ruby for Leopard. I've googled my brains
out,
but am finding nothing.

I'm using 1.8.6 right now, but I could start testing 1.9.x if
necessary.

I need it for pure Ruby projects to work on some large data
aggregation
tasks that are whacking the 4GB RAM limit.

Read:

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/buil
ding/building.html#/
/apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001064-CH208-BHCHDAFB

For 1.9 I configured:

$ LDFLAGS="-arch x86_64" CFLAGS="-arch x86_64 -mmacosx-version-
min=10.5 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" ./configure

(ignore the error from fuse, it seems configure doesn't use CFLAGS
there)

`make test` finishes most tests, `make test-all` fails with a missing
encoding (maybe iconv isn't compiled 64-bit?)

The built ruby is 64-bit though:

$ ./ruby -ve 'p 1.size'
ruby 1.9.1p129 (2009-05-12 revision 23412) [i386-darwin9.7.0]
8

Compared to Apple ruby:

$ ruby -ve 'p 1.size'
ruby 1.8.6 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 287) [universal-darwin9.0]
4

I imagine the same configure flags would work for 1.8.

 

[Ryan Davis]

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

I personally won't use anything that isn't under x64. No offense to
people
who are scared about memory usage but I prefer to be able to address
my
12GB+ of Ram on each of my servers without needing to hack my Kernel
for
anything more than security, and speed. I've had no problems with the
memory the gentleman reported with memory consumption crawling on
OSX, BSD
or Debian so perhaps it's just a bad compile in his behalf? Our
Daemons that
monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was
happening
but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we
get, our
total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes
that
run Ruby.

such sophistication and yet you still top-post...

 

[Jordon Bedwell]

I want to take the time to thank you for calling me out personally and
singling me out for something that lots of people do, while I continue to
"top-post". I prefer it when people get pissed off at the little things in
the world because they are 1.) Arrogant and 2.) Ignorant.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Davis [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:45 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: 64-bit Ruby for OS X ?

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

I personally won't use anything that isn't under x64. No offense to
people
who are scared about memory usage but I prefer to be able to address
my
12GB+ of Ram on each of my servers without needing to hack my Kernel
for
anything more than security, and speed. I've had no problems with the
memory the gentleman reported with memory consumption crawling on
OSX, BSD
or Debian so perhaps it's just a bad compile in his behalf? Our
Daemons that
monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was
happening
but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we
get, our
total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes
that
run Ruby.

such sophistication and yet you still top-post...

You have a great day, because you've just made my day. I suggest you check
your email in order and see the original posters email and then follow the
emails. Or do you get pissed off because your email doesn't go in an
ascending fashion too, you know you can set your email to display in Time
Ascending right? Thanks again and have a great day. I look forward to more
emails from you.

 

[Greg Willits]

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?



such sophistication and yet you still top-post...

Q: second most annoying thing in email?
A: threads with complaints by people who won't accept they can't stop
the world from top posting and can't accept that it is not a major
criminal offense.

I prefer bottom posting too (and Macs, and Fords, and...) -- let it
go...

-- gw

 

[Eric Hodel]

I personally won't use anything that isn't under x64. No offense to
people
who are scared about memory usage but I prefer to be able to address
my
12GB+ of Ram on each of my servers without needing to hack my Kernel
for
anything more than security, and speed. I've had no problems with the
memory the gentleman reported with memory consumption crawling on
OSX, BSD
or Debian so perhaps it's just a bad compile in his behalf? Our
Daemons that
monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was
happening
but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we
get, our
total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes
that
run Ruby.

I don't understand what this is a response to from my instructions
about how to compile ruby for 64-bit.

 

[Greg Willits]

For 1.9 I configured:

$ LDFLAGS="-arch x86_64" CFLAGS="-arch x86_64 -mmacosx-version-
min=10.5 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" ./configure

Thanks, I'll give that a try later this week.

-- gw

 

[Joel VanderWerf]

I prefer bottom posting too (and Macs, and Fords, and...) -- let it
go...

is cognition human powerful how amazing really It's. Ditto.

Ew, Fords?

 

[Garry Freemyer]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Small minds can't cope with diversity.



________________________________
From: Ryan Davis <[email protected]>
To: ruby-talk ML <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 3:45:08 PM
Subject: Re: 64-bit Ruby for OS X ?

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

I personally won't use anything that isn't under x64. No offense to people
who are scared about memory usage but I prefer to be able to address my
12GB+ of Ram on each of my servers without needing to hack my Kernel for
anything more than security, and speed. I've had no problems with the
memory the gentleman reported with memory consumption crawling on OSX, BSD
or Debian so perhaps it's just a bad compile in his behalf? Our Daemons that
monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was happening
but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we get, our
total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes that
run Ruby.

such sophistication and yet you still top-post...

 

[Eleanor McHugh]

I don't understand what this is a response to from my instructions
about how to compile ruby for 64-bit.

I think we're supposed to be impressed by the 12+ GB of RAM, or the
~100MB per process for the ruby processes or something like that and
all rush out and recompile for 64 bit.

I'd be interested to know how those servers really benchmark compared
to an x32 core with PAE and the same amount of RAM, but that's just
little old contrarian me.


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net

 

[Eleanor McHugh]

Small minds can't cope with diversity.

And top posters have no interest in their contributions being seen in
context.


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net