/ Ruby

Ruby and Java Stack Level

While coding for an algorithmic problem, I discovered that Ruby's stack level is much shallower than Java. This caused a recursive DFS solution written in Ruby failed due to stack level too deep (SystemStackError), while the same code written in Java passed. Whether recursion or tail recursion should be used is not the point of this post. This post is to find out what the max stack level is and what limits the stack level.


Consider the following code

def recurse(n)
  return 1 if n == 1
  1 + recurse(n-1)

def binary_search
  answer, a, b = 0, 0, 1_000_000_000

  while a<=b
    mid = (a+b)/2
      answer = mid
      a = mid + 1
    rescue SystemStackError
      b = mid - 1


puts "Max Stack Level: #{binary_search}"

What do you think Max Stack Level is?

Running the code reports that the the Max Stack Level is 10080 on my MBP. This is because the stack size of the default Ruby 2.3.1 VM (MRI) is limited to 1MB.

This is very limiting for even a medium-sized dataset. To increase it, one can specify VM stack size for Ruby >= 2.0.0. To check current max stack size, open irb

irb(main):001:0> RubyVM::DEFAULT_PARAMS
         :thread_vm_stack_size => 1048576,
    :thread_machine_stack_size => 1048576,
          :fiber_vm_stack_size => 131072,
     :fiber_machine_stack_size => 524288



And running the same code again returns Max Stack Level: 20162, which is roughly 2 * 10080. Setting RUBY_THREAD_VM_STACK_SIZE to 3MB will increase Max Stack Level to 30243. This proves that Max Stack Level is linearly proportional to RUBY_THREAD_VM_STACK_SIZE in Ruby.


public class Solution {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println("Max Stack Level: " + binarySearch());

    private static long binarySearch() {
        long a = 0, b = Long.MAX_VALUE, answer = 0;
        while (a <= b) {
            long mid = (a + b) / 2;
            try {
                answer = mid;
                a = mid + 1;
            } catch (StackOverflowError e) {
                b = mid - 1;
        return answer;

    private static long recurse(long n) {
        if (n == 1) return 1;
        return 1 + recurse(n - 1);

Running this code with

java Solution

returns Max Stack Level: 49150. This is because the thead stack size on my MBP defaults to 1MB. The defaults are platform-specific, see here.

JVM has an option ss for setting the thread stack size. Running the code with thread stack size of 2M

java -Xss2M Solution

returns Max Stack Level: 98302, which roughly doubled the stack level. Running it with 4MB gives 196606 and it matches what I thought. Therefore, in Java, Max Stack Level is linearly proportional to ss.


Both Ruby and Java have clearly defined max stack size, which limits the number of levels code can recurse. In Ruby, it's defined by environment variable RUBY_THREAD_VM_STACK_SIZE. While in Java, it's defined by JVM option ss. A clear observation is that when given the same max stack size and the same code, Java performs much better than Ruby. This is not a surprise because Java (on JVM) is a compiled, while Ruby MRI is interpreted.