3 ms·
Heroku's suggestion: "modernize and optimize your web stack." I don't have any experience with Ruby web stacks so I'm curious if this is actually an option for
by socialist_coder 14y ago
Heroku's suggestion: "modernize and optimize your web stack."
I don't have any experience with Ruby web stacks so I'm curious if this is actually an option for you guys? What would it take to do that? Would the performance increase on Heroku be worth it?
It also seems like if you wanted to self host you would probably need to do those same improvements, right?
Please don't take my comment the wrong way, I'm not trying to say Heroku is somehow excused from their mistakes here. I'm just trying to understand that suggestion from Heroku.
- WillieBKevin 14y agoHere's a discussion about that point in the original article's comments: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5216553 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5216553 The conclusion is that it will buy you a bit more time, but does not fix the underlying issue. In Rap Genius' case, they're large enough that they would still have significant issues even if they switched to cedar and unicorn with 2-4 worker processes.
- scottshea 14y agoAgreed. I am working with a client who is slightly lower on the Heroku customer food chain and using Unicorn with four workers right now. Our next step is Puma though that will likely not be the end point.
- steveklabnik 14y agoCertainly investigate Puma on Rubinius or JRuby, and make sure you have config.threadsafe! turned on.
- jrochkind1 14y ago> they would still have significant issues even if they switched to cedar and unicorn with 2-4 worker processes. Yeah, but how about config.threadsafe! with puma or thin in multi-thread mode? It is odd to me that very little of this conversation on the nets recognizes that Rails _does_ support multi-threaded concurrent request handler, with the right app server stack (figuring out the right app server stack can be non-trivial, although it's getting better).