similar to: Fwd: Maintaining capacity during deploys

Greetings, I''m getting this - ActiveModel::MissingAttributeError: missing attribute: some_attr - on a random basis under a unicorn server, running rails 3.2 and ruby 1.9.3 As the case of the last poster in the following thread - https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/1906 - I too am able to resolve this issue by settingpreload_app to false. However, this is not the behaviour I want to

Hi all, I''m having issues with Unicorn and connecting to RabbitMQ using the tmm1-amqp gem. I''ve tried lots of approaches. The classic initializer with Thread.new { EM.run } for the Rails app and even tried using the Qusion library. (https://github.com/danielsdeleo/qusion) I''ve made a simple mod to Qusion for it to monkey patch unicorn too. The code looks

Signaling using normal kill(2) is preserved, but the master now prefers to signal workers using a pipe rather than kill(2). Non-graceful signals (:TERM/:KILL) are still sent using kill(2), as they ask for immediate shutdown. This change is necessary to avoid triggering the ubf (unblocking function) for rb_thread_call_without_gvl (and similar) functions extensions. Most notably, this fixes

Hey guys, I''m sending USR2 to unicorn after cap deploy, and the old master is getting replaced by a new master that doesn''t work. Here are some similar threads I found ... http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-unicorn/2010-October/000733.html http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-unicorn/2010-October/000717.html I''m not using Bundler, and I have working_directory

Hello all, Last week, I finally decided to put into motion some ideas I''ve been kicking around for a year in my head since last year... Basically I don''t want to have to deal with threads or support platforms that rely on or encourage threads. Especially given MRI 1.9 where kernel threads are more difficult to debug than green ones. Given the limited scope of this project,

Hey everyone, Working on an engine for rails that needs specialized behavior with forking and I had a couple questions. 1. What is the best way to determine whether the app is indeed running inside a unicorn server? Most of the attempts I can find to detect check to see if the main modules for Unicorn are defined, but this really only checks to see that Unicorn is present, not that you are

Hi, I''m trying to use unicorn in a test deployment of a Rails app that uses Mongoid, so Activerecord isn''t included in the app. When I start unicorn through Capistrano though, the stderr log fills up endlessly with identical ActiveRecord-related errors: I, [2012-12-05T04:19:25.375952 #5096] INFO -- : Refreshing Gem list I, [2012-12-05T04:19:32.941249 #5096] INFO -- :

Hi, I''m wondering why SIGINT and SIGTERM both were chosen for the quick shutdown? I agree with SIGINT but not with SIGTERM. A lot of unix tools send SIGTERM as default (kill, runit among some) and it seems to be the standard way of telling a process to quit gracefully but not among Ruby people (there are a few other ruby processes behaving the same way). I just think it''s weird

I am using nginx with unicorn as a reverse proxy. Has been fantastic, but needed to look through some code for first time. Using ruby 1.9.3p194 with rails 3.2.9, development mode with ssl enabled, I start unicorn with -d ...and it does not get served up by nginx. Any ideas, or more information needed? Thanks! Jet Below is my unicorn.rb for developent: # config/unicorn.rb env =

Hi, We''ve just migrated one of our rails applications from nginx/passenger running on REE 1.8.7 Ubuntu 8.04 to unicorn running on MRI 1.9.3 on Ubuntu 10.04. The app makes a number of calls to internal services using curb. Our deployment script stops unicorn by sending SIGQUIT to the unicorn master, sleeps for a few seconds to ensure that HAProxy has taken the node out of service and

We now give an example of how a before_fork hook can be used to incrementally migrate off the old code base without hitting a thundering herd (especially in the "preload_app false") case. Also comment on the per-worker listen usage in the RDoc, not just a hidden comment. --- I just pushed this out earlier, this example was inspired by Chris Wanstrath''s before_fork hook but

Hi all, I''m fighting with the after_fork hook and my sinatra application. The Sinatra app is using active_record, In my unciron.rb file I''m using preload_app true after_fork do |server, worker| ? defined?(ActiveRecord::Base) and ??? ActiveRecord::Base.establish_connection End but I always get the error: ERROR -- : ActiveRecord::AdapterNotSpecified

Hello, I''m using unicorn since a while, but now I try to run it the first time inside a FreeBSD jail. The initial start of unicorn works fine and it serves all the requests. But if I want to restart it using the USR2 signal, it (more or less) slowly starts using more and more CPU cycles. There is no error message in the logs and it quite hard to reproduce that error. In 1 of 20 tries,

Hi, I''m deploying Unicorn on a Rails application with RUnit. Technically I''m using Chef''s deployment tools, if any of you are familiar with it (https://github.com/opscode-cookbooks/application_ruby) but to be clear they aren''t doing anything magical, so this is purely an issue with RUnit and Unicorn. The TL;DR of the following post, which has lots of

In case more people are interested, I originally posted the following to ruby-core: http://mid.gmane.org/20101210190448.GA6534 at dcvr.yhbt.net Eric Wong <normalperson at yhbt.net> wrote: > zuerrong <zuerrong at gmail.com> wrote: > > 2010/12/10 Tony Arcieri <tony.arcieri at medioh.com>: > > > And Unicorns are fantastical mythical creatures! > > > >

Hi, This morning, while checking for a correct deployment, we found out that the Unicorns we are using were sending 500 Internal errors very frequently to the HAProxy that sits in front of them. After some investigation, It turned out that HAProxy checks the backend by opening and closing a connection to the unicorn. Unfortunately the Unicorns we use ( v 0.990.0 ) will try to reply to this probe

Two ideas, one more controversial than the other. First: auto-killing bloated workers.?My current app has some memory leakage that wasn''t really visible on our older passenger setup, since the auto-scaling meant that bloated workers got killed periodically. In a perfect world, we''d find and patch all of the leaks, but in the meantime (and as a safety net) I''d like to get

--- lib/unicorn/configurator.rb | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- lib/unicorn/http_server.rb | 3 +++ test/unit/test_configurator.rb | 8 ++++++++ 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/unicorn/configurator.rb b/lib/unicorn/configurator.rb index 0d0eac7..a0ae576 100644 --- a/lib/unicorn/configurator.rb +++ b/lib/unicorn/configurator.rb @@ -441,9 +441,22 @@ class

First off thanks very much for all the hard work on unicorn. Alas, we''ve encountered an issue where unicorn fails to spawn new workers that have loaded the incoming revision on a capistrano deploy. I''m not entirely sure the issue is due to unicorn as it appears that bundler was responsible for a similar issue in the past:

I''ve been analyzing our Unicorn-powered Rails app''s performance, and have found that garbage collection is a big factor in slow requests. In the interest of avoiding those performance hits while handling requests, would it be possible to have a unicorn worker run garbage collection after handling a request and before waiting for the next one? Would this be a good idea? Cheers,