Alternatives to Passenger logo

Alternatives to Passenger

Puma, NGINX, Apache HTTP Server, Apache Tomcat, and Microsoft IIS are the most popular alternatives and competitors to Passenger.
1.4K
296
+ 1
199

What is Passenger and what are its top alternatives?

Passenger is a versatile application server that is designed to boost the performance of web applications by optimizing resource usage and scalability. It provides features such as automatic load balancing, application isolation, and efficient process management. However, one of its limitations is that it may not be suitable for very large deployments with complex requirements.

  1. Nginx: Nginx is a popular web server known for its high performance, stability, and scalability. It offers features such as reverse proxying, load balancing, and caching. Pros: Lightweight, excellent for serving static content. Cons: Steeper learning curve compared to Apache.

  2. Apache Tomcat: Apache Tomcat is an open-source servlet container that is widely used for deploying Java-based web applications. Key features include support for Java Servlet, JavaServer Pages (JSP), and WebSocket. Pros: Robust support for Java applications. Cons: Resource-intensive for small applications.

  3. Node.js: Node.js is a server-side JavaScript runtime that allows developers to build scalable, network applications. It features an event-driven, non-blocking I/O model and is widely used for building real-time web applications. Pros: Efficient for handling concurrent connections. Cons: Limited support for traditional web applications.

  4. Docker: Docker is a popular platform for deploying, managing, and running containers. It offers lightweight, portable, and scalable containers that help streamline the development and deployment process. Pros: Easy to package and distribute applications. Cons: Requires familiarity with containerization concepts.

  5. Kubernetes: Kubernetes is an open-source container orchestration platform that automates the deployment, scaling, and management of containerized applications. It provides features like service discovery, load balancing, and self-healing. Pros: Scalable, resilient infrastructure. Cons: Steep learning curve for beginners.

  6. OpenShift: OpenShift is a container platform based on Kubernetes that simplifies the process of building, deploying, and managing containerized applications. It offers features like source-to-image builds, automated scaling, and monitoring. Pros: Streamlined application development workflow. Cons: Limited community support compared to Kubernetes.

  7. Heroku: Heroku is a platform-as-a-service (PaaS) that enables developers to deploy, manage, and scale applications without worrying about infrastructure management. It supports multiple programming languages and provides built-in tools for monitoring and scaling applications. Pros: Rapid deployment, easy to use. Cons: Limited customization options.

  8. AWS Elastic Beanstalk: AWS Elastic Beanstalk is a service that simplifies the process of deploying and scaling web applications on AWS infrastructure. It supports multiple programming languages and frameworks and automates the deployment process. Pros: Seamless integration with AWS services. Cons: Limited control over underlying infrastructure.

  9. Puma: Puma is a simple, fast, and multi-threaded Ruby web server that is designed for high-performance applications. It offers features like process management, load balancing, and support for multiple concurrency models. Pros: Efficient handling of concurrent connections. Cons: Limited support for non-Ruby applications.

  10. Caddy: Caddy is a lightweight HTTP/2 web server with automatic HTTPS encryption, virtual hosting, and built-in metrics and monitoring. It is known for its ease of use and simplicity, making it ideal for small to medium-sized websites. Pros: Automatic HTTPS setup, user-friendly configuration. Cons: Limited advanced features compared to Nginx.

Top Alternatives to Passenger

  • Puma
    Puma

    Unlike other Ruby Webservers, Puma was built for speed and parallelism. Puma is a small library that provides a very fast and concurrent HTTP 1.1 server for Ruby web applications. ...

  • NGINX
    NGINX

    nginx [engine x] is an HTTP and reverse proxy server, as well as a mail proxy server, written by Igor Sysoev. According to Netcraft nginx served or proxied 30.46% of the top million busiest sites in Jan 2018. ...

  • Apache HTTP Server
    Apache HTTP Server

    The Apache HTTP Server is a powerful and flexible HTTP/1.1 compliant web server. Originally designed as a replacement for the NCSA HTTP Server, it has grown to be the most popular web server on the Internet. ...

  • Apache Tomcat
    Apache Tomcat

    Apache Tomcat powers numerous large-scale, mission-critical web applications across a diverse range of industries and organizations. ...

  • Microsoft IIS
    Microsoft IIS

    Internet Information Services (IIS) for Windows Server is a flexible, secure and manageable Web server for hosting anything on the Web. From media streaming to web applications, IIS's scalable and open architecture is ready to handle the most demanding tasks. ...

  • OpenResty
    OpenResty

    OpenResty (aka. ngx_openresty) is a full-fledged web application server by bundling the standard Nginx core, lots of 3rd-party Nginx modules, as well as most of their external dependencies. ...

  • LiteSpeed
    LiteSpeed

    It is a drop-in Apache replacement and the leading high-performance, high-scalability server. You can replace your existing Apache server with it without changing your configuration or operating system details. As a drop-in replacement, it allows you to quickly eliminate Apache bottlenecks in 15 minutes with zero downtime. ...

  • Gunicorn
    Gunicorn

    Gunicorn is a pre-fork worker model ported from Ruby's Unicorn project. The Gunicorn server is broadly compatible with various web frameworks, simply implemented, light on server resources, and fairly speedy. ...

Passenger alternatives & related posts

Puma logo

Puma

833
262
20
A Modern, Concurrent Web Server for Ruby
833
262
+ 1
20
PROS OF PUMA
  • 4
    Free
  • 3
    Convenient
  • 3
    Easy
  • 2
    Multithreaded
  • 2
    Consumes less memory than Unicorn
  • 2
    Default Rails server
  • 2
    First-class support for WebSockets
  • 1
    Lightweight
  • 1
    Fast
CONS OF PUMA
  • 0
    Uses `select` (limited client count)

related Puma posts

Jerome Dalbert
Principal Backend Software Engineer at StackShare · | 6 upvotes · 167.4K views
Shared insights
on
UnicornUnicornPumaPumaRailsRails
at

We switched from Unicorn (process model) to Puma (threaded model) to decrease the memory footprint of our Rails production web server. Memory indeed dropped from 6GB to only 1GB!

We just had to decrease our worker count and increase our thread count instead. Performance (response time and throughput) remained the same, if not slightly better. We had no thread-safety errors, which was good.

Free bonus points are:

  • Requests are blazing fast on our dev and staging environments!
  • Puma has first-class support for WebSockets, so we know for sure that Rails ActionCable or GraphQL subscriptions will work great.
  • Being on Puma makes us even more "default Rails"-compliant since it is the default Rails web server these days.
See more
Mark Ndungu
Software Developer at Nouveta · | 4 upvotes · 28K views
Shared insights
on
UnicornUnicornPumaPumaRubyRubyRailsRails

I have an integration service that pulls data from third party systems saves it and returns it to the user of the service. We can pull large data sets with the service and response JSON can go up to 5MB with gzip compression. I currently use Rails 6 and Ruby 2.7.2 and Puma web server. Slow clients tend to prevent other users from accessing the system. Am considering a switch to Unicorn.

See more
NGINX logo

NGINX

112K
59.9K
5.5K
A high performance free open source web server powering busiest sites on the Internet.
112K
59.9K
+ 1
5.5K
PROS OF NGINX
  • 1.4K
    High-performance http server
  • 893
    Performance
  • 730
    Easy to configure
  • 607
    Open source
  • 530
    Load balancer
  • 288
    Free
  • 288
    Scalability
  • 225
    Web server
  • 175
    Simplicity
  • 136
    Easy setup
  • 30
    Content caching
  • 21
    Web Accelerator
  • 15
    Capability
  • 14
    Fast
  • 12
    High-latency
  • 12
    Predictability
  • 8
    Reverse Proxy
  • 7
    The best of them
  • 7
    Supports http/2
  • 5
    Great Community
  • 5
    Lots of Modules
  • 5
    Enterprise version
  • 4
    High perfomance proxy server
  • 3
    Reversy Proxy
  • 3
    Streaming media delivery
  • 3
    Streaming media
  • 3
    Embedded Lua scripting
  • 2
    GRPC-Web
  • 2
    Blash
  • 2
    Lightweight
  • 2
    Fast and easy to set up
  • 2
    Slim
  • 2
    saltstack
  • 1
    Virtual hosting
  • 1
    Narrow focus. Easy to configure. Fast
  • 1
    Along with Redis Cache its the Most superior
  • 1
    Ingress controller
CONS OF NGINX
  • 10
    Advanced features require subscription

related NGINX posts

Recently I have been working on an open source stack to help people consolidate their personal health data in a single database so that AI and analytics apps can be run against it to find personalized treatments. We chose to go with a #containerized approach leveraging Docker #containers with a local development environment setup with Docker Compose and nginx for container routing. For the production environment we chose to pull code from GitHub and build/push images using Jenkins and using Kubernetes to deploy to Amazon EC2.

We also implemented a dashboard app to handle user authentication/authorization, as well as a custom SSO server that runs on Heroku which allows experts to easily visit more than one instance without having to login repeatedly. The #Backend was implemented using my favorite #Stack which consists of FeathersJS on top of Node.js and ExpressJS with PostgreSQL as the main database. The #Frontend was implemented using React, Redux.js, Semantic UI React and the FeathersJS client. Though testing was light on this project, we chose to use AVA as well as ESLint to keep the codebase clean and consistent.

See more

Around the time of their Series A, Pinterest’s stack included Python and Django, with Tornado and Node.js as web servers. Memcached / Membase and Redis handled caching, with RabbitMQ handling queueing. Nginx, HAproxy and Varnish managed static-delivery and load-balancing, with persistent data storage handled by MySQL.

See more
Apache HTTP Server logo

Apache HTTP Server

64.1K
22.3K
1.4K
Open-source HTTP server for modern operating systems including UNIX and Windows
64.1K
22.3K
+ 1
1.4K
PROS OF APACHE HTTP SERVER
  • 479
    Web server
  • 305
    Most widely-used web server
  • 217
    Virtual hosting
  • 148
    Fast
  • 138
    Ssl support
  • 44
    Since 1996
  • 28
    Asynchronous
  • 5
    Robust
  • 4
    Proven over many years
  • 2
    Mature
  • 2
    Perfomance
  • 1
    Perfect Support
  • 0
    Many available modules
  • 0
    Many available modules
CONS OF APACHE HTTP SERVER
  • 4
    Hard to set up

related Apache HTTP Server posts

Tim Abbott
Shared insights
on
NGINXNGINXApache HTTP ServerApache HTTP Server
at

We've been happy with nginx as part of our stack. As an open source web application that folks install on-premise, the configuration system for the webserver is pretty important to us. I have a few complaints (e.g. the configuration syntax for conditionals is a pain), but overall we've found it pretty easy to build a configurable set of options (see link) for how to run Zulip on nginx, both directly and with a remote reverse proxy in front of it, with a minimum of code duplication.

Certainly I've been a lot happier with it than I was working with Apache HTTP Server in past projects.

See more
Marcel Kornegoor
Shared insights
on
NGINXNGINXApache HTTP ServerApache HTTP Server

nginx or Apache HTTP Server that's the question. The best choice depends on what it needs to serve. In general, Nginx performs better with static content, where Apache and Nginx score roughly the same when it comes to dynamic content. Since most webpages and web-applications use both static and dynamic content, a combination of both platforms may be the best solution.

Since both webservers are easy to deploy and free to use, setting up a performance or feature comparison test is no big deal. This way you can see what solutions suits your application or content best. Don't forget to look at other aspects, like security, back-end compatibility (easy of integration) and manageability, as well.

A reasonably good comparison between the two can be found in the link below.

See more
Apache Tomcat logo

Apache Tomcat

16.3K
12.2K
201
An open source software implementation of the Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages technologies
16.3K
12.2K
+ 1
201
PROS OF APACHE TOMCAT
  • 79
    Easy
  • 72
    Java
  • 49
    Popular
  • 1
    Spring web
CONS OF APACHE TOMCAT
  • 2
    Blocking - each http request block a thread
  • 1
    Easy to set up

related Apache Tomcat posts

Остап Комплікевич

I need some advice to choose an engine for generation web pages from the Spring Boot app. Which technology is the best solution today? 1) JSP + JSTL 2) Apache FreeMarker 3) Thymeleaf Or you can suggest even other perspective tools. I am using Spring Boot, Spring Web, Spring Data, Spring Security, PostgreSQL, Apache Tomcat in my project. I have already tried to generate pages using jsp, jstl, and it went well. However, I had huge problems via carrying already created static pages, to jsp format, because of syntax. Thanks.

See more

Java Spring JUnit

Apache HTTP Server Apache Tomcat

MySQL

See more
Microsoft IIS logo

Microsoft IIS

15.2K
7.5K
236
A web server for Microsoft Windows
15.2K
7.5K
+ 1
236
PROS OF MICROSOFT IIS
  • 83
    Great with .net
  • 55
    I'm forced to use iis
  • 27
    Use nginx
  • 18
    Azure integration
  • 15
    Best for ms technologyes ms bullshit
  • 10
    Fast
  • 6
    Reliable
  • 6
    Performance
  • 4
    Powerful
  • 3
    Simple to configure
  • 3
    Webserver
  • 2
    Easy setup
  • 1
    Shipped with Windows Server
  • 1
    Ssl integration
  • 1
    Security
  • 1
    Охуенный
CONS OF MICROSOFT IIS
  • 1
    Hard to set up

related Microsoft IIS posts

I am currently in school for computer science and am doing a class project about web servers. Our assignment is to research and select one of these web servers. Could you please let me know which one you would choose among NGINX, Microsoft IIS, and Apache HTTP Server and why?

See more
OpenResty logo

OpenResty

2.3K
227
0
Turning Nginx into a Full-fledged Web App Server
2.3K
227
+ 1
0
PROS OF OPENRESTY
    Be the first to leave a pro
    CONS OF OPENRESTY
      Be the first to leave a con

      related OpenResty posts

      Chris McFadden
      VP, Engineering at SparkPost · | 7 upvotes · 290.4K views
      Shared insights
      on
      NGINXNGINXOpenRestyOpenRestyLuaLua
      at

      We use nginx and OpenResty as our API proxy running on EC2 for auth, caching, and some rate limiting for our dozens of microservices. Since OpenResty support embedded Lua we were able to write a custom access module that calls out to our authentication service with the resource, method, and access token. If that succeeds then critical account info is passed down to the underlying microservice. This proxy approach keeps all authentication and authorization in one place and provides a unified CX for our API users. Nginx is fast and cheap to run though we are always exploring alternatives that are also economical. What do you use?

      See more

      At Kong while building an internal tool, we struggled to route metrics to Prometheus and logs to Logstash without incurring too much latency in our metrics collection.

      We replaced nginx with OpenResty on the edge of our tool which allowed us to use the lua-nginx-module to run Lua code that captures metrics and records telemetry data during every request’s log phase. Our code then pushes the metrics to a local aggregator process (written in Go) which in turn exposes them in Prometheus Exposition Format for consumption by Prometheus. This solution reduced the number of components we needed to maintain and is fast thanks to NGINX and LuaJIT.

      See more
      LiteSpeed logo

      LiteSpeed

      2.3K
      124
      0
      A drop-in Apache replacement and the leading high-performance, high-scalability server
      2.3K
      124
      + 1
      0
      PROS OF LITESPEED
        Be the first to leave a pro
        CONS OF LITESPEED
          Be the first to leave a con

          related LiteSpeed posts

          Gunicorn logo

          Gunicorn

          1.1K
          897
          78
          A Python WSGI HTTP Server for UNIX
          1.1K
          897
          + 1
          78
          PROS OF GUNICORN
          • 34
            Python
          • 30
            Easy setup
          • 8
            Reliable
          • 3
            Light
          • 3
            Fast
          CONS OF GUNICORN
            Be the first to leave a con

            related Gunicorn posts

            Pierre Chapuis

            Unlike our frontend, we chose Flask, a microframework, for our backend. We use it with Python 3 and Gunicorn.

            One of the reasons was that I have significant experience with this framework. However, it also was a rather straightforward choice given that our backend almost only serves REST APIs, and that most of the work is talking to the database with SQLAlchemy .

            We could have gone with something like Hug but it is kind of early. We might revisit that decision for new services later on.

            See more

            I use Gunicorn because does one thing - it’s a WSGI HTTP server - and it does it well. Deploy it quickly and easily, and let the rest of your stack do what the rest of your stack does well, wherever that may be.

            uWSGI “aims at developing a full stack for building hosting services” - if that’s a thing you need then ok, but I like the principle of doing one thing well, and I deploy to platforms like Heroku and AWS Elastic Beanstalk where the rest of the “hosting service” is provided and managed for me.

            See more