Re:Why Wasn't Ruby 3 Faster?
by ketamine__ on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @10:07PM
(#26097811)
More hardware resources.
The example given was a Rails app. I don't think one process per core is common for Rails deployments but I'm not sure.
Re:Why Wasn't Ruby 3 Faster?
by jashmatthews on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @10:42PM
(#26098022)
Process per core with threading for parallel IO has been the default for almost a decade now.
Re:Why Wasn't Ruby 3 Faster?
by ketamine__ on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @11:46PM
(#26098343)
Default in what app servers?
Re:Why Wasn't Ruby 3 Faster?
by jashmatthews on Thursday February 11, 2021 @01:52AM
(#26098955)
Puma is part of the default Rails Gems and was first released all the way back in 2011.
Cause running more than 2 processes on a 2-core server just sounds weird.
I thought Node's doctrine was "One process per core", and (async) Rust and Go seem to do fine with managing their own thread pools. I haven't _tried_ to do a realistic benchmark of Hyper, but I've never seen it struggle with concurrency either, even on long-polling applications where concurrency was the norm for all clients.
More processes would work, but it doesn't seem like the right layer of abstraction for 2015, now that Nginx and Node have made the event model so popular.