From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sam.saffron@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on dcvr.yhbt.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
 URIBL_BLOCKED shortcircuit=no autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2
X-Original-To: unicorn-public@bogomips.org
Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com (mail-vc0-f169.google.com
 [209.85.220.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id
 45A451F5D9 for <unicorn-public@bogomips.org>; Wed,  3 Dec 2014 09:56:34 +0000
 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hy10so6798184vcb.14 for
 <unicorn-public@bogomips.org>; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 01:56:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.182.136 with SMTP id cc8mr2296563vcb.45.1417600593370;
 Wed, 03 Dec 2014 01:56:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.177.4 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 01:56:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
 <CAJri6_uarn+vrr_TN07SzyFzR07hDN-z79rBcDe=8VPxOL4mVQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:
 <CAJri6_uarn+vrr_TN07SzyFzR07hDN-z79rBcDe=8VPxOL4mVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 20:56:33 +1100
Message-ID:
 <CAAtdryN-wgOBvaYOv7moUFxsZ67Dtu+40AVMGbYCBohwE7HC8g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: No, passenger 5.0 is not faster than unicorn :)
From: Sam Saffron <sam.saffron@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Br=C3=A1ulio_Bhavamitra?= <braulio@eita.org.br>
Cc: unicorn-public <unicorn-public@bogomips.org>, Hitendra Hugo Melo
 <hitendra@riseup.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <unicorn-public@bogomips.org>

I covered this here:
http://discuss.topazlabs.com/t/amidst-blizzards-they-rest/1147

it seems like an odd marketing move to me ... optimising a bit that
needs very little help. heck ripping out hashie and the 50 frames
omniauth injects would have a significantly bigger impact on rails
apps out there than optimising the 0.5% that needs little optimising.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Br=C3=A1ulio Bhavamitra <braulio@eita.org.b=
r> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've just tested a one instance each (one worker with unicorn and
> --max-pool-size 1 passenger 5) on the rails app I work.
>
> And the results are just as I expected, no miracle at all: Unicorn is
> still the fatest!
> (the difference is only a few milliseconds less per request)
>
> The blocking design of unicorn is proving itself very efficient.
>
> cheers!
> br=C3=A1ulio
>