[hinkley]

In Ruby, as in NodeJS, the GIL pushes you to scale horizontally. The memory footprint of Hello World becomes a big problem, because the number of copies you run will be proportional to the number of cores you have, not the number of machines. You get no benefit from moving from an 8 core box to 16 or 20 cores.

I suspect if they do manage to pull off more concurrency in Ruby 3, that vertically scaling machines will make more sense. If 8 cores benefit from a shared footprint, instead of one core per process, then the budget looks more attractive.

So now might not be the right time to cherry-pick some of these features, but it may not be far off.

[schneems]

> GIL

FWIW the GIL has been the GVL since YARV was merged in and it became based on a virtual machine rather than purely interpreted. I believe this was 2.0.

> because the number of copies you run will be proportional to the number of cores you have, not the number of machines

While this is true, Ruby is also very CoW optimized so while forks grow linerally in size (with count), usually the first fork is drastically smaller than the process it was forked from.

I work at Heroku and recommend perf settings to customers. 5 years ago people were mostly hitting memory limits. Now it's pretty common to see apps that are maxing out the CPU well before coming close to ram limits.

Especially when compared to javascript, Ruby is extremely memory efficient.

I agree with your larger statement but wanted to chime in and expand on those two points.

[jashmatthews]

CRuby could still be much better at CoW. In theory, a forked process only needs a similar memory allocation to a pthread. In practice the runtime writes in a bunch of these inherited pages and fucks it up. malloc-ed memory is usually bigger than the "Ruby heap" so that kind of limits the impact you can have by trying to not write/re-write.

[wjossey]

Just want to reaffirm this post. I scaled ruby for a living for almost 8 years to millions of request per minute and this post is 100% accurate.

[throwdbaaway]

The high memory usage of ruby still causes problem if the app is single-threaded. I scaled databases for ruby apps for a living for almost 8 years, and sadly single-threaded legacy ruby app is still a thing.

Anyway, in the single-threaded scenario, the app may appear to be CPU bound under the steady state. However, when some hiccup happens in a database or in another microservice, all the ruby processes could soon be blocked waiting for network responses. In this case, ideally there should be plenty of idling ruby processes to absorb the load, but it will be rather costly to do so due to the high memory usage.

There are potential fixes of course, but with trade-offs:

- Aggressive timeout: May cause requests to fail under the steady state

- Circuit breaker: Difficult to tune the parameters, may not get triggered, or may prolong the degraded state longer than necessary. Also not a good fit when the process is single-threaded, as it can only get one data point at a time.

- Burning money: Can only do this until we hit the CPU : memory ratio limit imposed by the cloud vendors.

- Multi-threading: Too late to do this with years of monkey-patching that expects the app to run single-threaded.

[jashmatthews]

Dealing with latency variability is a Hard Problem™ and really not much to do with Ruby or process vs thread parallelism.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2408776.2408794

[throwdbaaway]

Well, having more spare ruby processes / threads would make the app more resistant to latency variability, and could have made some incidents into nonevents.

Also, while I don't disagree that it is indeed a hard problem, I do have very good experience with an async java stack, where I didn't have to worry about things like this. As long as a sane queue limit is defined on let's say the jetty http client, if something bad happens at the other end, the back pressure would kick in by failing immediately the requests that couldn't make it into the queue. Other parts of the app would then continue to be functional.

So, I would contend that it has a lot to do with ruby high memory usage, made much worse when single-threaded, and it looks like ruby 3.0 still won't have a complete async story yet?

EDIT: I checked the link again, and it looks Jeff Dean was talking about latency at p999 or above? By "hiccup", I actually mean something that would increase avg latency by perhaps 5~10x times, e.g. avg latency of 100ms under steady state + timeout of 1 second + the remote being down. Sorry for the confusion. Here, I am lucky if people start caring about p95.

[jashmatthews]

That's not an inherent property of a particular language or concurrency model, though. That's having logic to track request queue depth for a particular service or endpoint and fail fast/load shed. You can do the same in Ruby! Some would probably say this is what a service mesh is for.

Maybe you're thinking of the new Actor based model for compute parallelism? Async IO in production Ruby has been a thing for easily more than a decade.

[jashmatthews]

There are some important differences here between NodeJS and Ruby. NodeJS child processes are completely independent and created with spawn. https://github.com/nodejs/node-v0.x-archive/issues/2334

CRuby forks using fork() and Copy-on-Write shares memory from parent to child.

JRuby doesn't have a GIL so you only need a single process. Same with TruffleRuby.

With CRuby, you're much better to run a bigger container with multiple processes than one process per container.

With either NodeJS or CRuby you're still better to run less containers on bigger hosts. Each host has to duplicate the host OS and container infrastructure. Each container of a real production app also duplicates a bunch of stuff despite Docker's best attempts at sharing.

[schneems]

> JRuby doesn't have a GIL

Neither does CRuby! It's been the GVL since YARV was merged ;)

[eregon]

It's exactly the same thing though, isn't it? I use both terms interchangeably. And it seems the term GIL is better known than GVL.

[chrisseaton]

TruffleRuby doesn't have a GIL though.

[3np]

NodeJS is single-threaded while Ruby has native threads and "fibers" - what makes you say you wouldn't be able to utilize additional cores in Ruby?

[schneems]

Fibers are still restricted by the GVL. Threads are also restricted by the GVL. The only "true" concurrency in MRI is to fork a process.

[winrid]

You can. You can with Node too.

With Node you can just use workers. I have tools I wrote in Node that can max out my 16 core MacBook.

[3np]

Some major differences here are how they interface with I/O and the mechanisms around memory sharing.

Nodejs workers are more like webworkers and mostly suitable for proper CPU-intensive parallelization whereas in Ruby it's not uncommon to run e.g. multithreaded web server in the same process and namespace.