Re: [racket] very general reliability of old stuff question

2011-05-22 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Fri, 20 May 2011 10:00:56 -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > If someone came to you and said, "We're using PLT 4.2.5 with CGC and > JIT, and we are wondering whether reliability would be improved by > moving to Racket 5.x and/or moving to 3m and/or disabling 4.2.5's JIT," > what would you say? Li

Re: [racket] very general reliability of old stuff question

2011-05-21 Thread Neil Van Dyke
Eli Barzilay wrote at 05/21/2011 12:05 AM: Switching to 3m sounds like the main improvement. Did you check the memory footprint? It can be especially bad with long-running server processes. (Specifically, there are certain data patterns that get CGC to leak very fast.) There was no perc

Re: [racket] very general reliability of old stuff question

2011-05-20 Thread Eli Barzilay
Earlier today, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > If someone came to you and said, "We're using PLT 4.2.5 with CGC and > JIT, and we are wondering whether reliability would be improved by > moving to Racket 5.x Probably. Most releases include fixes to crashes... (And of course there's no way to compare the

Re: [racket] very general reliability of old stuff question

2011-05-20 Thread D Herring
On 05/20/2011 10:00 AM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: If someone came to you and said, "We're using PLT 4.2.5 with CGC and JIT, and we are wondering whether reliability would be improved by moving to Racket 5.x and/or moving to 3m and/or disabling 4.2.5's JIT," what would you say? Details... A big instal

[racket] very general reliability of old stuff question

2011-05-20 Thread Neil Van Dyke
If someone came to you and said, "We're using PLT 4.2.5 with CGC and JIT, and we are wondering whether reliability would be improved by moving to Racket 5.x and/or moving to 3m and/or disabling 4.2.5's JIT," what would you say? Details... A big installation of PLT 4.2.5 (with CGC, and with JIT