Heroku's Ugly Secret: The story of how the cloud-king turned its back on Rails

Re:Heroku's Ugly Secret: The story of how the cloud-king tur... by ylansegal on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @11:01PM (#5217624)

I did some performance analysis on puma vs unicorn vs thin a while ago:

http://ylan.segal-family.com/blog/2012/08/20/better-performa...

Although as noted in the comments, I neglected to run threadsafe! and should have probably tried rubinius or jruby. I have been meaning to redo. Take with a grain of salt

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Heroku's Ugly Secret: The story of how the cloud-king tur... by argarg on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:49PM (#5222146)

You should give a try to puma 2.0 currently in beta 6 (https://rubygems.org/gems/puma). Lots of performance improvements. I haven't benchmarked it but my guess is it outperforms unicorn.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Heroku's Ugly Secret: The story of how the cloud-king tur... by NatW on Thursday February 14, 2013 @12:52AM (#5217967)

You seem have written one of the very few articles I've seen benchmarking this. I'd love to know more about how Puma compares to Unicorn (especially unicorn configurations mentioned by some in this conversation) and Thin for serving rails on Heroku. Many of the Unicorners pushing their solution don't appear to be aware of Puma and its potential benefits. I'm curious if Puma with MRI has benefits, too. Thanks!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Heroku's Ugly Secret: The story of how the cloud-king tur... by miloshadzic on Thursday February 14, 2013 @08:32AM (#5219331)

AFAIK Puma should have a lower memory footprint on MRI than Thin but I haven't done benchmarks myself.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Heroku's Ugly Secret: The story of how the cloud-king tur... by steveklabnik on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:37PM (#5221086)

Also note that Rails 4 will have threadsafe! on by default, too, so if you didn't have it on here, that'll make it different for those apps.

[ Parent | on HN ]