Heroku Blog: Routing Performance Update
blog.heroku.com
Heroku Blog: Routing Performance Update
1–10 of 197 posts
Re: Heroku Blog: Routing Performance Update
#2> "... but until this week, we failed to see a common thread among these reports."
So Rap Genius, a customer, was able to figure out the issues (from the outside looking in) but Heroku, "on the inside" wasn't able to figure them out?
Or they're playing the "we didn't know, we're going to fix it right away" angle?
EDIT: also, s/failed to/did not/ makes more sense. "failed" implies they tried.
Re: Heroku Blog: Routing Performance Update
#3Our documentation recommends the use of Thin, which is a single-threaded, evented web server. In theory, an evented server like Thin can process multiple concurrent requests, but doing this successfully depends on the code you write and the libraries you use. Rails, in fact, does not yet reliably support concurrent request handling. This leaves Rails developers unable to leverage the additional concurrency capabilities offered by the Cedar stack, unless they move to a concurrent web server like Puma or Unicorn.
So, do/will they now recommend Puma/Unicorn over Thin?
Re: Heroku Blog: Routing Performance Update
#4> "... but until this week, we failed to see a common thread among these reports." So Rap Genius, a customer , was able to figure out the issues (from the outside looking in) but Heroku, "on the inside" wasn't able to figure them out? Or they're playing the "we didn't know, we're going to fix it right away" angle? EDIT: also, s/failed to/did not/ makes more sense. "failed" implies they tried.
If you want a press release to be ignored, release it at EOD on a Friday.
Re: Heroku Blog: Routing Performance Update
#5Not to be too harsh, but I'm not sure whether "we had no idea it was so bad" is better or worse than "we knew it was bad, but didn't tell anybody" for a platform company. The tone of the post is appropriately apologetic, but this does make you wonder what other problems they're missing.
Re: Heroku Blog: Routing Performance Update
#6Nothing really changed. If you cannot see how Heroku fucked you as a customer, then they actually did not fuck you; Otherwise, just do it yourself.
Re: Heroku Blog: Routing Performance Update
#7Depending on what side of Hanlon's razor you fall, the only conclusion I get from this is that they are either incompetent or dishonest. I have a very hard time believing that this issue remained unknown to them for years.
As for the post, it's pretty much just documentation. I didn't see any apology. And the only promise of a better tomorrow is a vague "Working to better support concurrent-request Rails apps on Cedar".
Re: Heroku Blog: Routing Performance Update
#8[deleted]
Re: Heroku Blog: Routing Performance Update
#9tl;dr Don't run your single-threaded Rails app (read: the vast majority of Rails apps) on Heroku. Neither the Cedar or Bamboo stacks are optimized for them at this point.
It's incredible to me how the performance of their stack has degraded so far for what is probably the most common use case for their platform.
Re: Heroku Blog: Routing Performance Update
#10> "... but until this week, we failed to see a common thread among these reports." So Rap Genius, a customer , was able to figure out the issues (from the outside looking in) but Heroku, "on the inside" wasn't able to figure them out? Or they're playing the "we didn't know, we're going to fix it right away" angle? EDIT: also, s/failed to/did not/ makes more sense. "failed" implies they tried.
If you want a press release to be ignored, release it at EOD on a Friday.
Bingo