Interesting. I'm hoping to get some time tomorrow to play with this,
and I might add that to the list of things to try.
Thanks,
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:51:51 -0500, Bob Hutchison <hutch@recursive.ca> wrote:
In fact, can you create a brand new user on your machine, log in as
that user, and try it from there?
In fact, can you create a brand new user on your machine, log in as
that user, and try it from there?Interesting. I'm hoping to get some time tomorrow to play with this,
and I might add that to the list of things to try.
Did you get a chance to try this? If not you might want to. It has a chance of partitioning the possible solution space between the configuration of your machine and the configuration of your login. My experience with windows is that either can be a problem in very interesting ways.
Cheers,
Bob
On 16-Nov-07, at 10:45 PM, Ron Jeffries wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:51:51 -0500, Bob Hutchison <hutch@recursive.ca> > wrote:
Thanks,
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
----
Bob Hutchison -- tumblelog at http://www.recursive.ca/so/
Recursive Design Inc. -- weblog at http://www.recursive.ca/hutch
http://www.recursive.ca/ -- works on http://www.raconteur.info/cms-for-static-content/home/
Update:
Rather than follow any of the radical solutions like new computers or
formatting my hard drive, I purchased and downloaded some system
cleaning tools from uniblue software.
Ran them and the Ruby tests now run //faster// than Chet's machine.
And for some reason, the total number of I/Os recorded has dropped
from 65,000 to 25,000.
Not a solution, since I don't know what the problem was. But as a FIX
goes, cheap and easy.
Thanks to all for the help and ideas. It kept me moving and some of
the tools I downloaded look like they'll be handy in the future.
Thanks again,
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Update:
Rather than follow any of the radical solutions like new computers or
formatting my hard drive, I purchased and downloaded some system
cleaning tools from uniblue software.Ran them and the Ruby tests now run //faster// than Chet's machine.
And for some reason, the total number of I/Os recorded has dropped
from 65,000 to 25,000.
Wow - weird! 
Regards,
Bill
From: "Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries@acm.org>
Egads!!!!
Strangely unsatisfying after following this epic.
Kind of like the last episode of "The Sopranos"
On Nov 20, 2007 11:04 AM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@acm.org> wrote:
Update:
Rather than follow any of the radical solutions like new computers or
formatting my hard drive, I purchased and downloaded some system
cleaning tools from uniblue software.Ran them and the Ruby tests now run //faster// than Chet's machine.
And for some reason, the total number of I/Os recorded has dropped
from 65,000 to 25,000.Not a solution, since I don't know what the problem was. But as a FIX
goes, cheap and easy.
--
Rick DeNatale
My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Ron Jeffries wrote:
Update:
Rather than follow any of the radical solutions like new computers or
formatting my hard drive, I purchased and downloaded some system
cleaning tools from uniblue software.Ran them and the Ruby tests now run //faster// than Chet's machine.
And for some reason, the total number of I/Os recorded has dropped
from 65,000 to 25,000.Not a solution, since I don't know what the problem was. But as a FIX
goes, cheap and easy.Thanks to all for the help and ideas. It kept me moving and some of
the tools I downloaded look like they'll be handy in the future.Thanks again,
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Its good that you have it resolved. Do you know what the tools did?
I have suspected that your problem might have had to do lots of files in some directory that Ruby or Rails searches frequently. Another possibility is an accumulation of junk in the Windows environment variables. Perhaps the drive was badly fragmented.
Bill Rutiser
Well... you're not sure what the proximate cause is. Probably virus /
spyware. The ultimate cause is Windows. Replace with Linux and the
problem won't come back. Can I recommend...
http://www.ubuntu.com/
John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz
New Zealand
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Ron Jeffries wrote:
Not a solution, since I don't know what the problem was. But as a FIX
goes, cheap and easy.
Ron Jeffries wrote:
some system
cleaning tools from uniblue software.
which of their tools did you run?
Are you running InstantRails's ruby (1.8.6-p0)? If yes, I had the same
"slowness" as you described using Netbeans IDE. So I downloaded the
oneclick installer Ruby (1.8.6-p111) from
http://rubyinstaller.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl and got an incredible
performance boost! Tests now run instantaneously.
But where is the "common denominator" between your and my "solution"?
Regards Clemens
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
John Carter wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Ron Jeffries wrote:
Not a solution, since I don't know what the problem was. But as a FIX
goes, cheap and easy.Well... you're not sure what the proximate cause is. Probably virus /
spyware. The ultimate cause is Windows. Replace with Linux and the
problem won't come back. Can I recommend...
http://www.ubuntu.com/
Of course you can! But I'll see your Ubuntu and raise you a Gentoo!
Bill Kelly wrote:
From: "Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries@acm.org>
Update:
Rather than follow any of the radical solutions like new computers or
formatting my hard drive, I purchased and downloaded some system
cleaning tools from uniblue software.Ran them and the Ruby tests now run //faster// than Chet's machine.
And for some reason, the total number of I/Os recorded has dropped
from 65,000 to 25,000.Wow - weird!
Regards,
Bill
Not really -- sounds like a fragmented drive. By the way, Windows XP does have a defragmenter built in and can do some cleaning, but the commercial tools are worth the money. I'm guessing, since he was experimenting with Rails, that the IE caches were full of doodoo.
And to John Carter -- Linux gets fragmented and crap buildup on hard drives too. But the filesystems are a tad more efficient, especially the non-ext3 ones. 
Reiser 3 is a good compromise, but there *are* faster ones.
Yes, it is unsatisfying. But at least cheaper than converting to Mac
or Linux, as some correspondents suggested.
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:23:52 -0500, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:
Egads!!!!
Strangely unsatisfying after following this epic.
Kind of like the last episode of "The Sopranos"
Honestly, John, I see no way that moving from Windows to Linux is a
reasonable step for someone who is totally not a Linux user. I've
programmed in almost every operating system and language and computer
known to man ... but never Unix / Linux. It seems to me that the
investment in learning how to operate a Linux system, and getting my
home network and music software ... up on it ... wouldn't pay off.
Might be "fun" ...
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:09:41 -0500, John Carter <john.carter@tait.co.nz> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Ron Jeffries wrote:
Not a solution, since I don't know what the problem was. But as a FIX
goes, cheap and easy.Well... you're not sure what the proximate cause is. Probably virus /
spyware. The ultimate cause is Windows. Replace with Linux and the
problem won't come back. Can I recommend...
http://www.ubuntu.com/
Mostly the tools cleaned the registry and did some mumbo-jumbo about
removing file pointers that were bad. Nothing that looked like it
would obviously improve much of anything. The spy eraser found a few
things. the SpeedUpMyPC part cleaned up memory, whatever that means,
and "junk files" that "clutter up your system and reduce performance".
None of it was very interesting. The hard drive was NOT defragged
until later. After degfragging a bit, the tests run in 33 seconds the
first time and 15 the second. (This strikes me as odd also.)
All in all, very magical and unsatisfying. But the problem is gone and
I think I'll just pretend it never happened. I have other things I'd
rather learn about if I can ...
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:37:29 -0500, William Rutiser <wruyahoo05@comcast.net> wrote:
Its good that you have it resolved. Do you know what the tools did?
I have suspected that your problem might have had to do lots of files in
some directory that Ruby or Rails searches frequently. Another
possibility is an accumulation of junk in the Windows environment
variables. Perhaps the drive was badly fragmented.
Bill Kelly wrote:
From: "Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries@acm.org>
Update:
Rather than follow any of the radical solutions like new computers or
formatting my hard drive, I purchased and downloaded some system
cleaning tools from uniblue software.Ran them and the Ruby tests now run //faster// than Chet's machine.
And for some reason, the total number of I/Os recorded has dropped
from 65,000 to 25,000.Wow - weird!
Not really -- sounds like a fragmented drive.
I was assuming *all* the different odd slowdowns discussed on
the thread were remedied. (Including the 15 second Socket.gethostbyname on localhost.) Maybe I shouldn't assume
that.
But still, a 15x speedup just from a defrag??? That would still
fit the 'weird' category from my personal experience. (But then,
I have zero experience with tablet PC's.)
Regards,
Bill
(The 15x figure comes from earlier on the thread where Ron was
comparing various rails tasks on his system compared to Chet's.)
From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@cesmail.net>
Not on your nelephant. Never has fragmentation slowed the many linux
systems under my control by that amount. (And I've been using Linux
since 0.9 versions)
I sincerely doubt that it would slow even windoze by so much either. I
suspect the much hated "Observer Pattern" or "come from" statement.
Pull up a friendly instance of Windows Explorer.
Open it on a folder.
Modify the folder. Ooh. Looky Windows Explorer updates instantly to
reflect the change.
Now do the same with another ten instances.
Modify the folder. Ooh looky they all update.
Now permit everything and it's brother and it's cuz who came along cos
he's a voyeur and sissy who wants to tell on you and and and and and... to
register to be informed of updates to the file system.
Try do something to your filesystem.
Wow! It's slow! I wonder why?
Compare with Linux. Modify filesystem. Nothing happened. Ah! I have to
click on the refresh button. Hokay. Theres the change.
But by golly oh, it runs like the wind...
...or you can write a tool to run around deregistering nearly
everybody, which is what I suspect Ron's nifty tool does.
The flip side is a bunch of his installed programs are not going to
see external file system updates until he refreshes or restarts the app.
However since a lot of these nosy parker apps were probably spyware
and the like.. he won't care.
John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz
New Zealand
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Not really -- sounds like a fragmented drive. By the way, Windows XP does have a defragmenter built in and can do some cleaning, but the commercial tools are worth the money. I'm guessing, since he was experimenting with Rails, that the IE caches were full of doodoo.
And to John Carter -- Linux gets fragmented and crap buildup on hard drives too. But the filesystems are a tad more efficient, especially the non-ext3 ones.
Ron Jeffries wrote:
Mostly the tools cleaned the registry and did some mumbo-jumbo about
removing file pointers that were bad. Nothing that looked like it
would obviously improve much of anything. The spy eraser found a few
things. the SpeedUpMyPC part cleaned up memory, whatever that means,
and "junk files" that "clutter up your system and reduce performance".
An over-full temp folder can cause an application to slow down to nothing. Happens more often when the required temp file names are prefixed.
None of it was very interesting. The hard drive was NOT defragged
until later. After degfragging a bit, the tests run in 33 seconds the
first time and 15 the second. (This strikes me as odd also.)
Why would that be odd? The 2nd time, it'd be in the cache?
Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
Honestly, John, I see no way that moving from Windows to Linux is a
reasonable step for someone who is totally not a Linux user. I've
programmed in almost every operating system and language and computer
known to man ... but never Unix / Linux. It seems to me that the
investment in learning how to operate a Linux system, and getting my
home network and music software ... up on it ... wouldn't pay off.Might be "fun" ...
A thousand apologies for going there but the experience of migrating
to OS X from Windows is much cleaner, and gives you a way to get
started with Unix to boot, without the Linux learning curve. OS X -
the Unix gateway drug.
Sorry! Now back to your regularly-scheduled list. It sounds as if
whoever wrote the system cleaning software knew Windows better than we
do. (Which is pretty logical.) It would be cool if we knew what
happened, though, since it may come up again for another person.
--
Giles Bowkett
Podcast: http://hollywoodgrit.blogspot.com
Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com
A thousand apologies for going there but the experience of migrating
to OS X from Windows is much cleaner, and gives you a way to get
started with Unix to boot, without the Linux learning curve. OS X -
the Unix gateway drug.
Yes, I suspect that's very true ...
Sorry! Now back to your regularly-scheduled list. It sounds as if
whoever wrote the system cleaning software knew Windows better than we
do. (Which is pretty logical.) It would be cool if we knew what
happened, though, since it may come up again for another person.
Yes. I hate shotgun fixes, though as they go, this was a good one!
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:16:16 -0500, Giles Bowkett <gilesb@gmail.com> wrote:
The disk cache you mean? I suppose that could be the difference.
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 04:28:33 -0500, Jari Williamsson <jari.williamsson@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote:
None of it was very interesting. The hard drive was NOT defragged
until later. After degfragging a bit, the tests run in 33 seconds the
first time and 15 the second. (This strikes me as odd also.)Why would that be odd? The 2nd time, it'd be in the cache?
Ron Jeffries-3 wrote:
None of it was very interesting. The hard drive was NOT defragged
until later. After degfragging a bit, the tests run in 33 seconds the
first time and 15 the second. (This strikes me as odd also.)Why would that be odd? The 2nd time, it'd be in the cache?
The disk cache you mean? I suppose that could be the difference.
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Ron,
Go to to the config subdirectory in the directory you're working at (i.e.
the directory you've created with the command 'rails directoryname'). Use a
text editor to edit a file called environment.rb. Comment out (by using #)
line 8:
RAILS_GEM_VERSION = '1.2.5' unless defined? RAILS_GEM_VERSION
this line becomes (after commenting out)
#RAILS_GEM_VERSION = '1.2.5' unless defined? RAILS_GEM_VERSION
go to your command prompt. type
$ ruby script\server
... and feel the beeze on your face....LOL
Good luck,
Nabil
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 04:28:33 -0500, Jari Williamsson > <jari.williamsson@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote:
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/rails-incredibly-slow-(update)-tf4802078.html#a14105909
Sent from the ruby-talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.