IronRuby 性能？
虽然我知道 IronRuby 还没有准备好让全世界使用它，但我想知道这里是否有人尝试过它并测试了它在原始性能方面与其他红宝石相比的表现如何？
如果是这样，结果是什么？您是如何衡量性能的（哪些基准等）？
编辑：IronRuby 团队在 http://ironruby 上维护着一个网站，介绍他们与 Ruby MRI 1.8 的比较情况.info/。 在规格通过率表下方，他们还提供了一些有关 IronRuby 在这些规格上的表现的信息。 该表不会持续更新，但我认为他们更新得足够频繁（您可以在页面顶部看到最后的更新）。
While I know IronRuby isn't quite ready for the world to use it, I was wondering if anyone here tried it and tested how well it faired against the other Rubies out there in terms of raw performance?
If so, what are the results, and how did you go about measuring the performance (which benchmarks etc)?
Edit: The IronRuby team maintains a site on how they compare to Ruby MRI 1.8 at http://ironruby.info/. Below the spec pass rate table, they also have some information on how IronRuby performs on these specs. This table is not continuously updated, but I assume they update it often enough (you can see the last update at the top of the page).
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（4）
我已经使用过它，它对我所做的事情非常有效。 然而，我对表现的衡量并不真正科学，因为它都是视觉的。 然而，当我在相同的任务上比较这两个程序时，我确实注意到 IronRuby 似乎更敏捷一些。 我真的认为这与 .NET 与 IIS 的强大而紧密的绑定有关，而不仅仅是框架的速度。
但我可能完全错了，因为我并没有真正将我的应用程序压力达到 Twitter 可能看到的水平。 但根据我的 .NET 经验，我知道它与当前的生产 Ruby 应用程序一样好，甚至更好。
顺便说一句，我在 IIS 下使用 FastCGI 测试了 Ruby。
I have used it and it has worked great for what I have done. However my measuring of performance isn't really scientific, because it was all visual. However I did notice that IronRuby seemed a little more snappier when I compared the two program on equal tasks. I really think this had to do more with the strong and tight binding with IIS that .NET has more than the speed of the framework.
But I could totally be wrong, because I didn't really stress my applications to the levels that Twitter might see. But from my .NET experience I know it would hold up just as well if not better than current production Ruby applications.
By the way I tested Ruby using FastCGI under IIS.
加载时间和内存利用率仍然是 IronRuby 的两个最弱点。 一旦一段特定的代码被加载并以某种稳态模式运行——也就是说，几乎没有新的源被评估——那么性能应该会非常好。
要回答您的具体问题，请考虑
The load time and the memory utilization are still the two weakest points in IronRuby. Once a particular piece of code has been loaded and is running in a sort of steady-state mode -- that is, little to no new source is being evaluated -- then the performance should be quite good.
To answer your specific question, consider this data.
Antonio Cangiano 刚刚发布了一些新基准 （8 月 9 日），IronRuby 在这方面似乎比 Windows 下的 MRI 更快。 John Lam 和他的同事们做得非常出色，但还没有完成优化。
Antonio Cangiano just published some new benchmarks (August 09), IronRuby seems to be faster across that board than MRI under Windows. John Lam and co have done a fantastic job and are not done optimising.
根据这篇文章 http://www.iunknown.com/2008/ 05/ironruby-and-rails.html。 五月份的表现远未达到他们的预期。 我听说 http://altnetpodcast.com/episodes/9-state-of-ironruby （3天前）他们仍在努力提高性能。 我猜他们把兼容性放在第一位，现在正在努力使性能达到与其他 ruby 实现相同的水平。
据我了解，它们的性能远不如同一团队开发的 Iron Python。 我不知道这是否是因为 Iron Ruby 更多地使用了 DLR，并且仍然需要优化，或者他们是否需要更多地优化 Iron Ruby 实现本身。 但我想这是个好消息，因为他们可以更快地得到它。 因此，如果您已经对表现感到满意，您会更加高兴。
According to this article http://www.iunknown.com/2008/05/ironruby-and-rails.html. In may performance was nowhere near where they expected it to be. I heard in http://altnetpodcast.com/episodes/9-state-of-ironruby (3 days ago) that they're still working on performance. I guess they put compatability first and are now trying to get the performance up to par with other ruby implementations out there.
As far as I understand they're not nearly as performant as Iron Python that is developed by the same team. I don't know if this is because Iron Ruby is using the DLR a lot more and that still needs to be optimized or if they need to optimize the Iron Ruby implementation itself more. But I guess it is good news because they can get it a lot faster. So if you're already happy with performance you'll get a lot happier.