RMagick has memory problems. MiniMagick with Attachment_Fu is slowwww. Go ImageScience.
Posted by Luke Ludwig Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:35:00 GMT
Most Rails applications have to deal with resizing uploaded images for the creation of thumbnails. The main choices include RMagick, MiniMagick, or ImageScience, all of which come packaged as gems. Alternatively you can write your own which really isn't that difficult. So which one should you use? First I would recommend not writing your own, because it is really nice to take advantage of one of the very fine attachment plugins that are available. File column is the old standby rails attachment plugin, but it uses RMagick. Attachment_Fu is more flexible since you have the choice of using RMagick, MiniMagick, or ImageScience and can switch between them easily. At TeamSportTech where I work I recently transitioned our relatively large rails application from using file column and RMagick to using attachment_fu and ImageScience. Originally I was planning on using MiniMagick instead of ImageScience, but it turns out that MiniMagick is quite slow. The following timing results are on my Mac Book when running in development mode, and include uploading a single 3.4 MB jpeg which is resized down to 4 different sizes. MiniMagick consistently took 18 seconds to accomplish this, RMagick 7 seconds, and ImageScience 6 seconds. This doesn't accurately represent a production environment, but I do believe it is a fair comparison. Note that the time to upload is not a factor since this was done entirely on my local computer.
So why is MiniMagick with attachment_fu so slow? And why not use RMagick? RMagick and MiniMagick use the well known ImageMagick C libraries. RMagick works by providing API ruby bindings to the ImageMagick libraries, which means that RMagick operates within the ruby process. It is well documented that RMagick consumes a lot of memory and has memory leaks as well. See Craig Ambrose's article and a Mephisto article. It appears like RMagick2 provides better memory management.