On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote: > Michael Guterl <mguterl@gmail.com> wrote: >> We've been using Unicorn 1.x very successfully for some time with a >> Rails 2.3 application. Would you recommend upgrading to Unicorn 3.x? > > Yes if you're running a recent Linux (>= 2.6.28), it might help somewhat > with performance (but may not be noticeable with a particular app). > I haven't done extensive benchmarking, but the reduction of syscalls > should help a bit, and newer versions will exploit some of that more. > > I don't expect (m)any regressions on recent Linux, and any will be found > and fixed quickly (usually within 24-48 hours). > > If you're willing to help iron out portability bugs to other kernels, > then please upgrade and report back :) > > > On the other hand, if you're going to be losing a lot of > money/users/lives in case of failure, stick to what works for you :) Thanks Eric, we'll probably stick with 1.x for the time being. _______________________________________________ Unicorn mailing list - mongrel-unicorn@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-unicorn Do not quote signatures (like this one) or top post when replying
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote: > Jeremy Evans <jeremyevans0@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote: >> > Michael Guterl <mguterl@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> We've been using Unicorn 1.x very successfully for some time with a >> >> Rails 2.3 application. Would you recommend upgrading to Unicorn 3.x? >> > >> > Yes if you're running a recent Linux (>= 2.6.28), it might help somewhat >> > with performance (but may not be noticeable with a particular app). >> > I haven't done extensive benchmarking, but the reduction of syscalls >> > should help a bit, and newer versions will exploit some of that more. > <snip> >> > If you're willing to help iron out portability bugs to other kernels, >> > then please upgrade and report back :) >> >> Just an anecdotal data point here, using OpenBSD-current. Moving from >> Unicorn 1.0 to 2.0 sped up the scaffolding_extensions integration test >> suite by a factor of 3 (~10 seconds to ~3 seconds). I'm guessing this >> is due mainly to the use of kgio. Hoping to upgrade to Unicorn 3.0 >> today. > > Wow! I didn't expect that kind of performance improvement![1] What > is this test doing? I'm actually suspicious there could be a bug > somewhere in Unicorn or kgio causing wrong results :) > > Let us know how 3.0 goes, thanks! > > [1] - dalli reported 10-20%, which is closer to what I expected > (1-10%). Looks like it must have been some other change that caused this speed up, as after testing again with 1.x, I'm getting about the same in terms of performance. Sorry for the misinformation. Jeremy _______________________________________________ Unicorn mailing list - mongrel-unicorn@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-unicorn Do not quote signatures (like this one) or top post when replying
Jeremy Evans <jeremyevans0@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote: > > Michael Guterl <mguterl@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We've been using Unicorn 1.x very successfully for some time with a > >> Rails 2.3 application. Would you recommend upgrading to Unicorn 3.x? > > > > Yes if you're running a recent Linux (>= 2.6.28), it might help somewhat > > with performance (but may not be noticeable with a particular app). > > I haven't done extensive benchmarking, but the reduction of syscalls > > should help a bit, and newer versions will exploit some of that more. <snip> > > If you're willing to help iron out portability bugs to other kernels, > > then please upgrade and report back :) > > Just an anecdotal data point here, using OpenBSD-current. Moving from > Unicorn 1.0 to 2.0 sped up the scaffolding_extensions integration test > suite by a factor of 3 (~10 seconds to ~3 seconds). I'm guessing this > is due mainly to the use of kgio. Hoping to upgrade to Unicorn 3.0 > today. Wow! I didn't expect that kind of performance improvement![1] What is this test doing? I'm actually suspicious there could be a bug somewhere in Unicorn or kgio causing wrong results :) Let us know how 3.0 goes, thanks! [1] - dalli reported 10-20%, which is closer to what I expected (1-10%). -- Eric Wong _______________________________________________ Unicorn mailing list - mongrel-unicorn@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-unicorn Do not quote signatures (like this one) or top post when replying
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote: > Michael Guterl <mguterl@gmail.com> wrote: >> We've been using Unicorn 1.x very successfully for some time with a >> Rails 2.3 application. Would you recommend upgrading to Unicorn 3.x? > > Yes if you're running a recent Linux (>= 2.6.28), it might help somewhat > with performance (but may not be noticeable with a particular app). > I haven't done extensive benchmarking, but the reduction of syscalls > should help a bit, and newer versions will exploit some of that more. > > I don't expect (m)any regressions on recent Linux, and any will be found > and fixed quickly (usually within 24-48 hours). > > If you're willing to help iron out portability bugs to other kernels, > then please upgrade and report back :) > > > On the other hand, if you're going to be losing a lot of > money/users/lives in case of failure, stick to what works for you :) Just an anecdotal data point here, using OpenBSD-current. Moving from Unicorn 1.0 to 2.0 sped up the scaffolding_extensions integration test suite by a factor of 3 (~10 seconds to ~3 seconds). I'm guessing this is due mainly to the use of kgio. Hoping to upgrade to Unicorn 3.0 today. Jeremy _______________________________________________ Unicorn mailing list - mongrel-unicorn@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-unicorn Do not quote signatures (like this one) or top post when replying
Michael Guterl <mguterl@gmail.com> wrote: > We've been using Unicorn 1.x very successfully for some time with a > Rails 2.3 application. Would you recommend upgrading to Unicorn 3.x? Yes if you're running a recent Linux (>= 2.6.28), it might help somewhat with performance (but may not be noticeable with a particular app). I haven't done extensive benchmarking, but the reduction of syscalls should help a bit, and newer versions will exploit some of that more. I don't expect (m)any regressions on recent Linux, and any will be found and fixed quickly (usually within 24-48 hours). If you're willing to help iron out portability bugs to other kernels, then please upgrade and report back :) On the other hand, if you're going to be losing a lot of money/users/lives in case of failure, stick to what works for you :) -- Eric Wong _______________________________________________ Unicorn mailing list - mongrel-unicorn@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-unicorn Do not quote signatures (like this one) or top post when replying
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote: > Changes: > > Rewindable "rack.input" may be disabled via the > "rewindable_input false" directive in the configuration file. > This will violate Rack::Lint for Rack 1.x applications, but can > reduce I/O for applications that do not need a rewindable > input. > > This release updates us to the Kgio 2.x series which should play > more nicely with other libraries and applications. There are > also internal cleanups and improvements for future versions of > Rainbows! > > The Unicorn 3.x series supercedes the 2.x series > while the 1.x series will remain supported indefinitely. > We've been using Unicorn 1.x very successfully for some time with a Rails 2.3 application. Would you recommend upgrading to Unicorn 3.x? Best, Michael Guterl _______________________________________________ Unicorn mailing list - mongrel-unicorn@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-unicorn Do not quote signatures (like this one) or top post when replying
Changes: Rewindable "rack.input" may be disabled via the "rewindable_input false" directive in the configuration file. This will violate Rack::Lint for Rack 1.x applications, but can reduce I/O for applications that do not need a rewindable input. This release updates us to the Kgio 2.x series which should play more nicely with other libraries and applications. There are also internal cleanups and improvements for future versions of Rainbows! The Unicorn 3.x series supercedes the 2.x series while the 1.x series will remain supported indefinitely. * http://unicorn.bogomips.org/ * mongrel-unicorn@rubyforge.org * git://git.bogomips.org/unicorn.git -- Eric Wong _______________________________________________ Unicorn mailing list - mongrel-unicorn@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-unicorn Do not quote signatures (like this one) or top post when replying