Forum: Ruby on Rails Does Rails perform better-or-worse on different O.S.? Linux,

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
4355712ae48ad0f34b4f2d73658860d8?d=identicon&s=25 Miles Keaton (Guest)
on 2006-04-06 03:55
(Received via mailing list)
We're at a point where we could choose any O.S. for a soon-to-be
launched Rails app server, and are feeling pretty neutral about it.

The choices are Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Solaris.

Since Rails will be running everything, I'm wondering if anyone has
seen significantly better (or worse) performance in any of these O.S.
in Rails in particular?
A0c079a7c3c9b2cf0bffebd84dc578b0?d=identicon&s=25 unknown (Guest)
on 2006-04-06 05:05
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 5, 2006, at 8:53 PM, Miles Keaton wrote:

> We're at a point where we could choose any O.S. for a soon-to-be
> launched Rails app server, and are feeling pretty neutral about it.
>
> The choices are Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Solaris.
>
> Since Rails will be running everything, I'm wondering if anyone has
> seen significantly better (or worse) performance in any of these O.S.
> in Rails in particular?

The only major comment I've seen lately regarding performance on a
specific platform recommends against using the pthreads version of
ruby on freebsd. It results in very poor performance. Instead, use
the non-pthreads binary (likely available as a port).

I think most of the comments you receive will be along the lines of
"use whatever is comfortable and within your budget." Besides, on
equivalent hardware you'll see Linux and *BSD come within a few
percentage points of each other. Five percent rarely makes or breaks
a production environment, so don't worry about this too much.

My .02.

cr
694d815d0495d7dafb36aff6a0942595?d=identicon&s=25 Peter (Guest)
on 2006-04-06 05:11
I am in the same situation but all my knowledge is based on Mac OS X.
So I would like to go for the Xserve.

For a starting Rails app that shoud be OK shouldn't it?

Anybody any viable reasons for not doing this?
2a0f7bd2c54fbc44329d69555b96f1c5?d=identicon&s=25 Kev Jackson (Guest)
on 2006-04-06 05:11
(Received via mailing list)
> a production environment, so don't worry about this too much.
>
I'd be more concerned with the security of the app, given that I'd pick
OpenBSD - you can't argue with it's track record, and (as far as I'm
aware), it's performance should be similar to FreeBSD (perhaps a touch
slower).  I'm struggling with evil RedHat at work right now, so I'd give
Linux a big thumbs down (not really, but RedHat AS 3 sucks, debian is
*much* better apt-get > rpms).

Solaris (OpenSolaris) might be an interesting choice.  If you are
thinking of buying the hardware too (not just installing some *nix on
generic hardware), then Solaris 10 + T1 hardware could be a very
powerful setup - given that Rails is mainly about serving content as
opposed to heavy-lifting (massive distributed transactions etc - ie the
crap that WebLogic/WebSphere/JBoss try to convince you you need), the T1
might be a good fit - can't argue with 32 hardware threads :)

In fact has anyone tried rails on a T1 yet - that would be a good test
of Mongrel!

Kev
59de94a56fd2c198f33d9515d1c05961?d=identicon&s=25 Tom Mornini (Guest)
on 2006-04-06 07:13
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 5, 2006, at 8:11 PM, Peter wrote:

> I am in the same situation but all my knowledge is based on Mac OS X.
> So I would like to go for the Xserve.
>
> For a starting Rails app that shoud be OK shouldn't it?
>
> Anybody any viable reasons for not doing this?

No. :-)

http://tinyurl.com/rz5jf

--
-- Tom Mornini
D895471fbc8b3b1233a250186d542af8?d=identicon&s=25 Alexey Verkhovsky (alexeyv)
on 2006-04-06 07:19
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 18:53 -0700, Miles Keaton wrote:
> We're at a point where we could choose any O.S. for a soon-to-be
> launched Rails app server, and are feeling pretty neutral about it.
>
> The choices are Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Solaris.
>
> Since Rails will be running everything, I'm wondering if anyone has
> seen significantly better (or worse) performance in any of these O.S.
> in Rails in particular?

Sorry for an irrelevant answer, but I can't help noticing that moving
from Windows 2000 to Gentoo Linux made Instiki unit tests three times
faster on the same PC.

I wish I could explain it. Is "gcc -O2 -march=i686 -pipe" that much
better than whatever One Click Installer does to compile Ruby???

Best regards,
Alex Verkhovsky
A4a90580e0113ab143ab29bace65d24c?d=identicon&s=25 poomplex (Guest)
on 2006-04-06 07:45
> Sorry for an irrelevant answer, but I can't help noticing that moving
> from Windows 2000 to Gentoo Linux made Instiki unit tests three times
> faster on the same PC.

seems to be a trend:

"The OSX results are pathetic and I suspect there's something
seriously wrong with my setup since OSX does considerably worse than
the comparable Linux machine." - Zed Shaw
6f7c877de704c7cc03c8a3b2dc52df92?d=identicon&s=25 Carmen --- (carmen)
on 2006-04-06 08:00
as seen on http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/ :
"NOTE: On FreeBSD and Mac OSX Iâ??ve found Mongrel performs really poorly.
Compared to Linux, Win32, or NetBSD these two OS seem to be doing
something very â??differentâ?. Weâ??ll be tuning these two platforms better,
but it may just be a Ruby problem."

i'm curious if any profilers have tried to track this down yet. if its
an issue with ruby, it could affect you even if youre not deploying with
mongrel..subjectively OSX felt much slower than linux on my G3, ive been
told that might have been due to lockupd and poor mach threading and
messaging overhead..

if youre feeling adventurous, you might want to benchmark a Niagara
server. 16 mongrels running on 16 cores? hmm...
A0c079a7c3c9b2cf0bffebd84dc578b0?d=identicon&s=25 unknown (Guest)
on 2006-04-06 15:23
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 6, 2006, at 1:00 AM, cdr wrote:

> with
> mongrel..subjectively OSX felt much slower than linux on my G3, ive
> been
> told that might have been due to lockupd and poor mach threading and
> messaging overhead..
>
> if youre feeling adventurous, you might want to benchmark a Niagara
> server. 16 mongrels running on 16 cores? hmm...

Eric Hodel posted on this a few weeks ago. The ruby-pthreads binary
on freebsd was the cause of the performance problem. Zed Shaw saw the
note and picked up the "fix" at that time.

As far as I know, there hasn't been any similar eureka moment for OSX.

cr
34f5b045aec62235c17458650ea75353?d=identicon&s=25 Steve Koppelman (hatless)
on 2006-04-06 16:29
Nothing wrong with OpenBSD or any other reccomendations, really, but I'd
be more concerned with potential security holes in the httpd
configuration and the rails app itself than I would with OS-specific
vulnerabilities.

Ultimately I'd say the choice of OS or distro should come down to what
the person responsible for securing and maintaining the machine is most
comfortable with. Someone experienced in locking down an iffy Linux
distro is probably going to end up with a more secure machine than they
initially would with a hardened BSD they're unfamiliar with.

That said, I run FreeBSD and I'm happy as a clam since I replaced the
default ruby with the no-pthreads version, for which, yes, there is a
ready-to-go package in the ports tree.

(And incidentally, I had a much easier time configuring Rails for
production on Apache+FCGI than I had with Lighttpd+FCGI. On the great
httpd server question, I'd say if you're comfortable with one and not
the other, once again, go with what you know.)

Kev Jackson wrote:
>> a production environment, so don't worry about this too much.
>>
> I'd be more concerned with the security of the app, given that I'd pick
> OpenBSD - you can't argue with it's track record, and (as far as I'm
> aware), it's performance should be similar to FreeBSD (perhaps a touch
> slower).  I'm struggling with evil RedHat at work right now, so I'd give
> Linux a big thumbs down (not really, but RedHat AS 3 sucks, debian is
> *much* better apt-get > rpms).
>
> Solaris (OpenSolaris) might be an interesting choice.  If you are
> thinking of buying the hardware too (not just installing some *nix on
> generic hardware), then Solaris 10 + T1 hardware could be a very
> powerful setup - given that Rails is mainly about serving content as
> opposed to heavy-lifting (massive distributed transactions etc - ie the
> crap that WebLogic/WebSphere/JBoss try to convince you you need), the T1
> might be a good fit - can't argue with 32 hardware threads :)
>
> In fact has anyone tried rails on a T1 yet - that would be a good test
> of Mongrel!
>
> Kev
694d815d0495d7dafb36aff6a0942595?d=identicon&s=25 Peter (Guest)
on 2006-04-06 17:33
Tom Mornini wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2006, at 8:11 PM, Peter wrote:
>
>> I am in the same situation but all my knowledge is based on Mac OS X.
>> So I would like to go for the Xserve.
>>
>> For a starting Rails app that shoud be OK shouldn't it?
>>
>> Anybody any viable reasons for not doing this?
>
> No. :-)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/rz5jf
>
> --
> -- Tom Mornini

Thanks for the link Tom.
Now I know for sure I can go that road.

Peter
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.