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 at rubyforge.org * git://git.bogomips.org/unicorn.git -- Eric Wong
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson at 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
Michael Guterl <mguterl at 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
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson at yhbt.net> wrote:> Michael Guterl <mguterl at 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
Jeremy Evans <jeremyevans0 at gmail.com> wrote:> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson at yhbt.net> wrote: > > Michael Guterl <mguterl at 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
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson at yhbt.net> wrote:> Jeremy Evans <jeremyevans0 at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson at yhbt.net> wrote: >> > Michael Guterl <mguterl at 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
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson at yhbt.net> wrote:> Michael Guterl <mguterl at 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.