Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Puma, a fast concurrent web server for Ruby

puma.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: Puma, a fast concurrent web server for Ruby

#71

Post by FooBarWidget »

nwienert wrote: post #46
FooBarWidget wrote: post #35

I'm one of the authors behind Phusion Passenger ( https://www.phusionpassenger.com/ ), a polyglot web server for Ruby, Python and Node.js. We've recently written a comprehensive comparison between Puma and Phusion Passenger, which you can read here: https://github.com/phusion/passenger/wiki/Puma-vs-Phusion-Pa... The comparison covers things like concurrency models, I/O models, security, clustering, multi-app support,…

You've done a great job posting Passenger links all over this thread. I find it in poor taste come into a semi-related post and repeatedly spam links to your product over and over...

mwienert, my apologies if it came over as spamming. The reason why I put an introduction in those posts is because last time I posted comments about Phusion Passenger people told me that I should introduce myself as being an author of Phusion Passenger. And as you've noticed in this thread (and not just on HN, see e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18398626/why-did-gitlab-6...), I actually say some very favorable things about Puma, and I thought that people will appreciate it if they know that it came from someone who writes web servers instead of just some random commenter.

But I see your point, and I'll keep it in mind. If I can edit my other posts I would remove some links but unfortunate HN has already frozen them.

Re: Puma, a fast concurrent web server for Ruby

#72

Post by FooBarWidget »

derengel wrote: post #61
FooBarWidget wrote: post #35

I'm one of the authors behind Phusion Passenger ( https://www.phusionpassenger.com/ ), a polyglot web server for Ruby, Python and Node.js. We've recently written a comprehensive comparison between Puma and Phusion Passenger, which you can read here: https://github.com/phusion/passenger/wiki/Puma-vs-Phusion-Pa... The comparison covers things like concurrency models, I/O models, security, clustering, multi-app support,…

I can understand Ruby and Python, but why nodejs?

Why not Node.js?

Re: Puma, a fast concurrent web server for Ruby

#74

Post by FooBarWidget »

_neil wrote: post #60
speleding wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first thought upon reading the article was: "I wonder how this compares to Passenger?". I find it very helpful to get an authoritative link from the Passenger guys themselves in this thread. Since Passenger is by now pretty much the default way to run a Ruby stack I don't think any one here doesn't know who they are and so they really do not need to spam. They are just contributing to the discussion and I apprecia…

Is Passenger really the default for most people? I tried it once and honestly prefer just dropping thin or unicorn behind nginx. And with this discussion, I'll probably be trying out puma in the near future.

And you definitely should try Unicorn and Puma. We never said that Unicorn and Puma are bad technologies. In fact, we think they're good technologies. That said, we also think that there are many reasons why one would prefer Phusion Passenger (either open source or Enterprise) over Unicorn or Puma.

One thing that some people don't know about Phusion Passenger is that it is versatile. Phusion Passenger Standalone is a mode, specifically designed to be dropped behind Nginx, just like Thin/Unicorn/Puma. That is a good alternative if you don't like the Apache/Nginx integrated modes.

Re: Puma, a fast concurrent web server for Ruby

#75

Post by [deleted] »

tinco wrote: post #58
jrochkind1 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not clear to me that my application fails at realistically simulating I/O (I agree with FooBarWidget below) (and I'm not sure where the word 'fair' comes from or what it means here, that's your word not mine), but I tried to provide as much code and information about exactly what I tested so you could decide for yourself, so fair enough. (I agree that with real I/O, there wouldn't be _exactly_ (eg) 50ms of wait…

Hmm, it seems though you're right, it seemed odd to me that the difference between puma would be so large at high concurrency, but when I look at it now the I see how the test does correctly mimic I/O for the purpose of the benchmark. My apologies if I came out too strong.

[deleted]

Re: Puma, a fast concurrent web server for Ruby

#76

Post by [deleted] »

Bjoern wrote: post #33
Bharath1234 wrote: post #25

Well. I have just come across this one which says Unicorn to be the best performing one. Apparently, Puma proves wrong even with multiple workers. https://gist.github.com/pbyrne/5218411

Interesting goes against directly what they claim on their own page. Its tested on a four core machine. I'm suspecting the 16 default threads were the problem, since Unicorn only ran with 4 processes not 16. http://puma.io/

[deleted]

Re: Puma, a fast concurrent web server for Ruby

#77

Post by moe »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #69
moe wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop making your comparisons sound as if passenger-free was a fully functional application server such as unicorn or puma. It is not. Passenger-free is a deliberately crippled demo-version. If someone wants to use passenger in production they will have to pay $50 USD per year, per server for it. And you know that very well. The 'free' passenger drops requests and serves 502 errors to the users during every sin…

Moe, I don't understand where your hostility comes from. It is fine if you don't like Phusion Passenger, but please don't say things that are untrue. The open source version of Phusion Passenger is not a crippled version. It is used in production by many large users, including New York Times, AirBnB, etc. Your statement that the open source version is "crippled" goes right against the fact that we've been actively de…

I don't understand where your hostility comes from.

From the dishonest spin that you put on everything you say.

I wrote:

   That's equivalent to popping up
   shareware nag-screens into my face.
You reply with:

   "popping up shareware nag-screens at random intervals"
   is completely false.
   There are absolutely no nag-screens
   in Phusion Passenger.
These little 'misunderstandings' and strawmen add up.

Consequently I won't even comment on your further spin-doctoring here.

I'll just encourage anyone interested in the matter to also read what EngineYard and UserVoice say about passenger;

https://blog.engineyard.com/2012/passenger-vs-unicorn

https://developer.uservoice.com/blog/2012/08/08/the-dark-pas...

Re: Puma, a fast concurrent web server for Ruby

#78

Post by FooBarWidget »

moe wrote: post #77
FooBarWidget wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moe, I don't understand where your hostility comes from. It is fine if you don't like Phusion Passenger, but please don't say things that are untrue. The open source version of Phusion Passenger is not a crippled version. It is used in production by many large users, including New York Times, AirBnB, etc. Your statement that the open source version is "crippled" goes right against the fact that we've been actively de…

I don't understand where your hostility comes from. From the dishonest spin that you put on everything you say. I wrote: That's equivalent to popping up shareware nag-screens into my face. You reply with: "popping up shareware nag-screens at random intervals" is completely false. There are absolutely no nag-screens in Phusion Passenger. These little 'misunderstandings' and strawmen add up. Consequently I won't even c…

I'm pretty sure you literally said "popping up shareware nag-screens at random intervals" instead of "that's equivalen to", but whatever, I'll take your word for it, in good faith, that you did not edit your post and that I read your post wrong.

Like I said before: errors during redeploy are not supposed to happen even in the open source version, and if they do happen then we are very interested in fixing them. Please tell us more. There is no need to spin this as being "dishonest". If you don't believe us, tell us about your problem, let us fix it, and verify for yourself that it is fixed. Only the facts matter.

As for the Engine Yard and Uservoice.com post:

1. All problems that the Engine Yard post talked about, were fixed 2 days after they published that article (http://blog.phusion.nl/2012/09/21/the-right-way-to-deal-with...). If you are still experiencing those problems, tell us, and we'll fix it. By the way, did you notice that EngineYard said something entirely different about Phusion Passenger and Unicorn later on? https://www.engineyard.com/articles/rails-server

2. Almost all problems that that the Uservoice.com talked about, have been fixed in Phusion Passenger 4.0, open source version.

3. There are also plenty of posts that describe migrating from Unicorn to Phusion Passenger, e.g. https://speakerdeck.com/arnvald/dot-dot-dot-but-we-had-to-ki....

So what does that mean? Experiences differ, for all sorts of reasons, some legit and some not (e.g. inefficient configuration). Neither kinds of posts automatically mean that Unicorn/Phusion Passenger is bad: there will always be people having problems with a particular technology. That's why we encourage people who have problems to contact our support forum.

Re: Puma, a fast concurrent web server for Ruby

#79

Post by FooBarWidget »

moe wrote: post #77
FooBarWidget wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moe, I don't understand where your hostility comes from. It is fine if you don't like Phusion Passenger, but please don't say things that are untrue. The open source version of Phusion Passenger is not a crippled version. It is used in production by many large users, including New York Times, AirBnB, etc. Your statement that the open source version is "crippled" goes right against the fact that we've been actively de…

I don't understand where your hostility comes from. From the dishonest spin that you put on everything you say. I wrote: That's equivalent to popping up shareware nag-screens into my face. You reply with: "popping up shareware nag-screens at random intervals" is completely false. There are absolutely no nag-screens in Phusion Passenger. These little 'misunderstandings' and strawmen add up. Consequently I won't even c…

FYI, I've initiated an investigation about your problem for you: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/phusion-passenger/oVGAsITg8s...
Post reply on HN