Im using the standard Ruby-on-Rails WEBBRICK server.
Im testing and If I have two or three connections simultaneously on very intensive scripts (which I let fully execute without timeouts) is it normal for them to stack (i.e complete the next task once the previous one completes - many simultaneous connections but only one is processed at a go)?
1) Is this behaviour normal?
2) How would I escape this, is Thin recommendable?
The rails server (webrick) is really only intended for local testing in development; a single instance runs, and requests will block on each other. Thin is a better choice as it does know how to handle multiple processes. Some people use Apache or Nginx in front of Thin for production servers. Passenger is a similar option that is also popular.
So yeah, install Thin for more realistic testing.
P.S. If you are hosting on Amazon EC2, their micro- and small instances only have a single CPU, so even if you have multiple processes accepting requests, if they are bound by the CPU, they'll act as though they are blocking on each other. (This may not be relevant to your question, but several long days of my life were spent figuring this out :-).
Related
I'm planning to have a Rails App that has a very content rich interactive page where many users will connect to.
Development has went well and small time testing on the Dev servers went without a hitch either.
Problems started when we started alpha testing with selected groups of people. the sever would grind to a halt suddenly. Nginx would stop because of queue being full. I was at a lose for a while, but after looking around, came to the conclusion that the live actioncable was completely eating up my memory.This especially gets bad when the user reloads the page multiple times that subscribes to actioncable, causing additional process to become active, completely stopping the server, only being cured by a nginx reboot.
I currently run a 2core 1GB memory SSD run VPS server for alpha testing, perhaps at tops 20 concurrent users.Should I be running into performance problems with such load? or should tuning the code or redis, passenger fix this?
I know its hard to say any definitive things without more specifics, but could a ballpark estimate be done with the information?
After some gogoling and testing Nginx settings, adding this directive to the nginx settings for passenger has seemed to dramatically improve the performance issue.
location /special_websocket_endpoint {
passenger_app_group_name foo_websocket;
passenger_force_max_concurrent_requests_per_process 0;
}
more info here
https://www.phusionpassenger.com/library/config/nginx/tuning_sse_and_websockets/
20 concurrent users plus multiple tabs per user is still less than about 100 concurrent websocket connections, it is not that lot.
First thing I'd look for is leaks - when for some reason websocket connection or other resources (open files etc.) does not get freed when actual user disconnects. Make sure you're running fresh versions of rails/passenger, as there was a bug in rails causing similar behaviour (see https://blog.phusion.nl/2016/07/07/actioncable-under-stress-p1/ for details)
Also while actioncable+passenger inside nginx allows you to run everything inside single process, it is not a good idea when you expect some load.
When running a clean nginx and separate rails servers for regular requests and cable - at least other parts of the app will continue some kind of working in such conditions.
Currently I've already read a lot tutorials teaching about Rails App deployment, almost every one of them use Nginx or other alternatives like Apache to serve static pages. Also in this QA Why do we need nginx with thin on production setup? they said Nginx is used for load balancing.
I can understand the reasons mentioned above, but I write a Rails App as a pure API backend service, the only purpose is to serve JSON formatted data for other client-side apps, no pages rendering at all. So my questions are:
In my situation, do I really need Nginx just to deploy a pure API Rails App?
If not, how should I deploy my app? just running it (with unicorn in production env) at background is good enough? like rails server -e production -d?
I'm so curious about these two question, hope someone can explain the details or show me some good references for me, thanks in advance.
See basically, Unicorn or thin are all single threaded servers. Which in a way means they handle single requests at a time, using defering and other techniques.
For a production setup you would generally run many instances of unicorn or thin ( depending on your load etc ), you would need to load balance b/w those rails application server instances, thats why you need Nginx or something similar on top.
to serve JSON formatted data for other client-side apps, no pages rendering at all
You see, it makes no difference. These tasks are similar: format certain data into a specific text-based structure. Much like rendering a view in HAML, ERB or whatever.
The difference is, you won't be serving static assets. At least, it's not practical for pure JSON APIs.
If you aim for compact JSON responses, your best bet is Unicorn (several workers) + nginx.
Unicorn is simpler and aims for fast single-client response. That is, a slow client could force Unicorn to waste a lot of time serving him a response. When backed by nginx though, it fires the entire response into nginx's buffer and heads for the next one only waiting for nginx to accept the response (since it's usually on the same machine, it's blazing fast). nginx then hands out responses. There could possibly be multiple instances of Unicorn, if one is not enough: but using only one could eliminate any kinds of data races on app level (which are possible in multithreaded apps).
Thin is designed by itself to handle multiple clients concurrently by itself, through use of threads and workers. Keep in mind though that MRI ("classic" Ruby) doesn't have "truly concurrent threads" because of GIL. Technoligies it's based on (Ruby+C) make it inferior to nginx (pure C) in terms of resource usage efficiency. nginx is even used sometimes to counter DDoS attacks, efficiency is proven in the wild (<1> <2> <3> and many more).
You could benefit from Thin if your app implied concurrent service for multiple clients, like Server-Sent Events or WebSocket usage, that require maintaining a constant connection. This one doesn't seem to. Don't count on concurrency too much where it's not required.
I'm quite new to Ruby web apps (coming from java).
I have VPS that has 1 CPU and 2GB of RAM and would like to play with some rails/sinatra stuff.
I'm using Ruby 2.1.0 MRI
How does number of CPUs maps to number of web server's processes I need to run? I use puma as a web server and have default threads (0,16) set up. But I noticed there is also "workers" option that forks another process to better handle multiple requests.
Do I understand correctly that for such setup (1 CPU) there is no point in running 2 web server processes? The only reasonable setup is 1 process with threads?
Oh now this is a pretty big question!
The number of processes and threads aren't necessarily linked to the number of CPU's. It's more a case of the amount of memory available, the amount of concurrent requests and the amount of 'locking' stuff that's going on.
If you're going to have long running requests that block other requests, then having additional processes can help with that. You can still have more than one process with a single CPU.
There are a number of different servers in Ruby that handle scaling in different ways, Unicorn, Puma, Thin are some of them. Doing a search on Unicorn vs Puma vs Thin can turn up some useful blog posts on the topic.
Here's a couple
http://ylan.segal-family.com/blog/2012/08/20/better-performance-on-heroku-thins-vs-unicorn-vs-puma/
https://www.engineyard.com/articles/rails-server
https://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/1822610
And some information on concurrency in Ruby
http://merbist.com/2011/02/22/concurrency-in-ruby-explained/
The TL:DR answer is, it depends!
Just wanted to get people's opinions on using Unicorn vs Thin as a rails server. Most of the articles/benchmarks I found online seem very incomplete, so it would nice to have a centralized place to discuss it.
Unicron is a multi-processes server, while thin is an event based/non-blocking server. Event-based servers are great... if your code is asynchronous/non-blocking - vanilla rails is blocking. So unless you use non-blocking rails libraries, I really don't see the advantage of using Thin. Even worse, in a non-blocking server, if your i/o loop is blocking you're going to block the entire loop and not be able to handle any more requests until the blocking call returns. Blocking libraries are going to slow thin down!
Why did Heroku choose Thin as their default server (for cedar)? They are smart guys, so I'm sure they had a reason.
Bellow is a link that suggests replacing Thin with 4 Unicorn workers - this makes perfect sense to me.
4 Unicron workers on Heroku
Thin is easy to configure - not optimal, but it just works in the Heroku environment.
Unicorn can be more efficient, but it needs to be configured: How many workers? Preload App? What do you pick?
I have released Unicorn Heroku apps with workers set to 3, 5 and 8 - just based on how big each app is - how much code, how much memory is used and how much traffic you get all go into picking this number, and you need to monitor over time to make sure you got the number right, and your app isn't running out of memory.
Preload false - this will make your app start slower, but when Unicorn restarts a worker, this is 'safer' with network connections (memcache, postgres, mongo etc)
Preload true - this is better, but you need to handle server re-connections correctly in the pre and post fork code.
Thin has none of these issues out of the box, but you only get process of execution.
Summary: It's really hard to configure Unicorn out of the box to work well (or at all) for everyone, whereas Thin can just work to get people running with fewer support requests.
Recently (only a few months ago) the folks behind Phusion Passenger add support to Heroku. Definitely this is an alternative you should try and see if fits your needs.
Is blazing fast even with 1 dyno and the drop in response time is palpable.
A simple Passenger Ruby Heroku Demo is hosted on github.
The main benefits that Passengers on Heroku claims are:
Static asset acceleration through Nginx - Don't let your Ruby app serve static assets, let Nginx do it for you and offload your app for the really important tasks. Nginx will do a much better job.
Multiple worker processes - Instead of running only one worker on a dyno, Phusion Passenger runs multiple worker on a single dyno, thus utilizing its resources to its fullest and giving you more bang for the buck. This approach is similar to Unicorn's. But unlike Unicorn, Phusion Passenger dynamically scales the number of worker processes based on current traffic, thus freeing up resources when they're not necessary.
Memory optimizations - Phusion Passenger uses less memory than Thin and Unicorn. It also supports copy-on-write virtual memory in combination with code preloading, thus making your app use even less memory when run on Ruby 2.0.
Request/response buffering - The included Nginx buffers requests and responses, thus protecting your app against slow clients (e.g. mobile devices on mobile networks) and improving performance.
Out-of-band garbage collection - Ruby's garbage collector is slow, but why bother your visitors with long response times? Fix this by running garbage collection outside of the normal request-response cycle! This concept, first introduced by Unicorn, has been improved upon: Phusion Passenger ensures that only one request at the same time is running out-of-band garbage collection, thus eliminating all the problems Unicorn's out-of-band garbage collection has.
JRuby support - Unicorn's a better choice than Thin, but it doesn't support JRuby. Phusion Passenger does.
Hope this helps.
Heroku does not use intelligent routing - it will randomly assign jobs to dynos regardless of whether the dyno is busy. Thus, if your dyno cannot handle multiple jobs at once, you will get latency (perhaps massive latency) even if you are paying for lots of other dynos that are free. " That's right — if your app needs 80 dynos with an intelligent router, it needs 4,000 with a random router. "
http://news.rapgenius.com/James-somers-herokus-ugly-secret-lyrics
Heroku says they are working on this, and their plan is to make it easier to use Unicorn. They basically said "Oops, we didn't notice that this was a problem for a few years... and now that we look, it's definitely a problem for Thin... so I guess you need to use a different program than the one we've been pushing all this time."
http://news.rapgenius.com/Jesper-joergensen-routing-performance-update-lyrics
From the official Heroku explanation (second link above):
"Rails, in fact, does not yet reliably support concurrent request handling. This leaves Rails developers unable to leverage the additional concurrency capabilities offered by the Cedar stack, unless they move to a concurrent web server like Puma or Unicorn.
Rails apps deployed to Cedar with Thin can rather quickly end up with request queuing problems. Because the Cedar router no longer does any queuing on behalf of the app, requests queued at the dyno must wait until the single Rails process works its way through the queue. Many customers have run into this issue and we failed to take action and provide them with a better approach to deploying Rails apps on Cedar."
Also of interest is that their performance tools, including New Relic, have not been reporting time spent in the dyno queue.
http://news.rapgenius.com/Lemon-money-trees-rap-genius-response-to-heroku-lyrics
Oops.
I want to run several (more than 2) tiny Rack-based apps on my VPS, which already has one large Rails app running.
The Rails app uses the traditional pair of Unicorn & nginx, and it requires most of the RAM that I have on my VPS.
I've tried adding similar Unicorn configurations for each app and it led me to conclude the RAM is insufficient.
So my question is: is it possible to set up one small memory-saving server which allows me to run several Sinatra apps at once?
UPDATE: in case it matters, I don't care much about the performance. These apps are not intended to do any serious jobs.
UPDATE 2: an approach based on sockets shared with Nginx is preferred over the one with ports.
Thanks!
I did my own exploration of this question and I think I found a solution which will allow me having one web-server running all my tiny apps at once.
It is based on RackStack not-yet-a-gem created by Remi Taylor (#remi on Github) https://github.com/remi/rack-stack.
RackStack is inspired by Rack::Builder, which as well seems being good for accomplishing a task like this - RackStack just goes in the same direction further, abstracting "stack" functionality in a way I found very nice and handy.
Here is a demonstration of RackStack which consists of two sample apps (Sinatra and Rack): https://github.com/stanislaw/skeletons/tree/master/rack_stack. To mimic stack app behavior on a real server I modified my /etc/hosts file to have localhost2 host pointing to 127.0.0.1.
I fire up Thin server and then run requests on localhost or localhost2: the requests to 'localhost' are served by FirstApp, to 'localhost2' by SecondApp.
I can't now foresee any problems that can appear, when I will test my apps on a real server, but now this approach seems to be exactly what I was looking for: I imagine, that on a real server Nginx will pass requests to all the hosts associated with my rack apps to a socket listened by Thin server. So, RackStack will meet only those requests which are addressed to the apps I have in my stack.
Any suggestions, improvements of this scheme or alternatives are still appreciated!