Which Rack web server are folks using with JRuby? Any particularly bad or good experiences? I suppose the only ones that support threading are Puma and Passenger?
on 2015-04-27 18:57
on 2015-04-27 21:29
We are using Puma and are very happy with it. We used to use trinidad and were happy with that to. The http://www.madebymarket.com/blog/dev/ruby-web-benc... was a trigger for us to switch in addition to puma supporting both MRI and JRuby. heroku’s move to puma as the recommended rack server was also a factor. We have been looking at torquebox 4 (not torquebox 3), but we will stick with puma for a long while, I think. > On 2015-04-27, at 18:55, John Joseph Bachir <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Which Rack web server are folks using with JRuby? Any particularly bad or good experiences? > > I suppose the only ones that support threading are Puma and Passenger? -- Uwe Kubosch email@example.com http://kubosch.no/
on 2015-04-27 21:31
Tomcat deployed via Warbler. On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:55 PM, John Joseph Bachir <
on 2015-04-28 23:36
Mizuno (jetty). - fastest from what I measured with apache-bench on my machines - simplest configuration (almost none) Only drawback: CTRL-C does not work well on Windows (the java process will be detached and will keep running), you might need to implement a shutdown hook in your app.
on 2015-04-29 00:05
We use Trinidad (multithreaded) and are satisfied with it. It's fast enough and it scales and can be monitored nicely. We use Passenger for MRI apps and have considered standardizing on Passenger or puma for everything, but don't have any specific plans to do so. FWIW I think you have to buy Passenger Enterprise to run your app multithreaded on Passenger. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Christian MICHON <
on 2015-04-30 08:01
Our experience is that there doesn't exist a good, correct, performant rack server for JRuby. We've used most of them, for two use cases: embedded status APIs in long running applications and as the primary interface for applications with a HTTP API. We package our applications as standalone JAR files with JRuby and all gems, and run them with `java -jar ...`, and this rules our some of the options. Either because some servers just don't work when run that way because they assume they will be able to muck about with the file system any way they like, or because they need to be in control, they need to be the container of the application. These are the servers we've tried, and our experience. If your use case is different, for example serving Rails apps, this may not be your experience: * Fishwife is the only one we've found that doesn't have significant bugs and can be embedded. It's not perfect, but it works well for us. * Mizuno is the precursor to Fishwife, and it hasn't been updated in years. * Puma is nice and I'd really like to use it, but the error handling is buggy. It has often filled up disks with error messages. I think the worst of this has been fixed, but in our experience it doesn't handle connection errors very well. We stay well away from Puma. * Jubilee showed some great promise but then development stopped. We haven't tried the last released version, but the last version we tried had significant bugs around request body handling. * rack-jetty was abandoned several years ago and doesn't handle request bodies over 4 KiB. * I'm not aware of any major bugs in Trinidad, but it doesn't work when embedded. * Torquebox is also not embeddable, and version 4 is starting to feel like vaporware. * WEBrick works surprisingly well for status APIs that don't get called very often. As I said, our use case is very different from serving a Rails application, so your experience will probably be different. T# On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Benjamin Ortega <firstname.lastname@example.org>
on 2015-04-30 08:12
@Theo: A small correction is needed on this specific sentence: "Mizuno is the precursor to Fishwife, and it hasn't been updated in years" Mizuno had a new release 1 week ago and the last one before was less than 9 months ago...
on 2015-04-30 09:23
Christian, my bad, last I checked it was dead, but looking at the repo now it has had some activity. That said, the diff between now and two years ago is just updates between maintenance releases of Jetty and a setting for the min number of threads, so I'll revise my statement to "it basically hasn't been updated in years". That doesn't mean that it's bad or unstable, just that it might be hard to get bugs fixed. T# On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Christian MICHON <
on 2015-04-30 10:51
Fishwife seems to be a well maintained product. Yet it may not work with legacy rack applications, as it is not compatible with ruby 1.8 mode. In 1.8 mode, you'll get systematically the following 500 error: [qtp1296674576-15] ERROR fishwife.RackServlet - On service: uninitialized constant Fishwife::RackServlet::ASCII_8BIT But thanks for mentioning this gem Theo. :-)
on 2015-05-01 14:19
IIRC Fishwife also does not support Java 6 because of it's use of Jetty 9. On the other hand both Ruby 1.8 and Java 6 are EOL, so I don't think anyone can be blamed for not supporting them anymore. I guess you could argue that JRuby in 1.8 mode is not EOL just because MRI 1.8 is EOL, though, but still, legacy code bases that can't be updated will also require legacy versions of dependencies. T# On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Christian MICHON <