> Hmm, I doubt that BackgrounDRb itself leaked memory.
Well, I said I didn't use the latest version yet, and if I look in the
changelog, it clearly says:
2008-02-28 hemant kumar <hemant@shire>
* fixed some meory leaks.
My problems had to do with exporting records to csv (with lots of
calculations being done on them before exporting). I tested the same
report generator from a normal Rails process and it was stable in
memory use, handing it over to BackgroundRB caused the server to run
out of memory in a matter of days (after it had been running without a
hitch for over a year).
Gosh, I feel naked. I dunno if you were affected by those bugs. But
anyways, since a fix was posted about 20 days back(and was in git repo
for much longer time), I think its okay.
That said, I believe backgroundrb is a good solution and the
advantages the other posters claim are indeed true. And given that
it's easy to integrate and if it fails for you, just as easy to take
out again and replace with something else, I see no reason not to try
it (I might well give it another shot in the future :-))
Yup, fully agree. Choose what works for you. Heck, I will dump bdrb in a
zip if it didn't work for me. I just wanted to draw your attention to
the facility of reloading workers on schedule, so as they are not
persistent and gets loaded only on scheduled time.