Rails - Apr 2006 - Does Rails perform better-or-worse on different O.S.? Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris in particular

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?

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

>
> 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.
>
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

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?

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

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

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

> 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

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

as seen on http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/ :
"NOTE: On FreeBSD and Mac OSX I?ve found Mongrel performs really poorly. 
Compared to Linux, Win32, or NetBSD these two OS seem to be doing 
something very ?different?. We?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...

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On Apr 6, 2006, at 1:00 AM, cdr wrote:
> as seen on http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/ :
> "NOTE: On FreeBSD and Mac OSX I?ve found Mongrel performs really  
> poorly.
> Compared to Linux, Win32, or NetBSD these two OS seem to be doing
> something very ?different?. We?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...
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

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

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

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

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.