Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Puma

1.2K
262
+ 1
20
Unicorn

498
397
+ 1
295
Add tool

Puma vs Unicorn: What are the differences?

Introduction

Puma and Unicorn are both popular web servers used to deploy Ruby applications. While they have similarities in terms of their purpose, they also have key differences that set them apart. In this article, we will explore these differences in detail.

  1. Concurrency Model: One of the main differences between Puma and Unicorn is their concurrency model. Puma utilizes a multi-threaded approach, where each worker process can handle multiple requests concurrently using threads. Unicorn, on the other hand, follows a pre-forking model, where multiple worker processes are created, each with its own memory space, and each worker can handle one request at a time. This difference in concurrency models impacts their performance and resource utilization.

  2. Memory Overhead: Another significant difference between Puma and Unicorn is the memory overhead they introduce. Since Puma utilizes threads, it shares memory amongst the threads, resulting in lower memory overhead compared to Unicorn, which creates separate processes for each worker. This can be advantageous in scenarios where memory efficiency is critical.

  3. Request Timeout Handling: Puma and Unicorn also differ in how they handle request timeouts. Puma provides built-in support for configurable request timeouts, allowing developers to set a maximum time for a request to be processed. Unicorn, on the other hand, does not provide such built-in support and requires additional configuration or middleware to handle request timeouts effectively.

  4. Ease of Configuration: Configuring Puma and Unicorn also differs in terms of complexity. Puma's configuration is more flexible and straightforward, with options to adjust the number of threads and workers easily. Unicorn's configuration, on the other hand, requires specifying the number of worker processes and tuning other parameters to achieve optimal performance. This subtle difference can impact the ease of deployment and maintenance of Ruby applications.

  5. Compatibility with MRI and JRuby: Puma and Unicorn also differ in their compatibility with different Ruby implementations. Puma is designed to work well with both MRI (Matz's Ruby Interpreter) and JRuby, making it a more versatile choice. Unicorn, while primarily developed for MRI, can also work with JRuby, but it may require special considerations and configurations to achieve optimal performance in a JRuby environment.

  6. Support for Streaming Responses: When it comes to handling streaming responses, Puma and Unicorn exhibit differences. Puma has built-in support for streaming responses, allowing developers to progressively send data to clients while the response is being generated. This can be advantageous for use cases such as real-time data updates or video streaming. Unicorn, on the other hand, does not have native support for streaming responses, requiring additional configurations or middleware to handle such scenarios effectively.

In summary, Puma and Unicorn differ in their concurrency models, memory overhead, request timeout handling, ease of configuration, compatibility with different Ruby implementations, and support for streaming responses. These differences make them better suited for different use cases, and understanding these distinctions can guide developers in selecting the optimal web server for their specific application requirements.

Advice on Puma and Unicorn
Mark Ndungu
Software Developer at Nouveta · | 4 upvotes · 27.3K views
Needs advice
on
PumaPuma
and
UnicornUnicorn

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
Replies (1)
Recommends
on
PumaPuma

Consider trying to use puma workers first. puma -w basically. That will launch multiple puma processes to manage the requests, like unicorn, but also run threads within those processes. You can turn the number of workers and number of threads to find the right memory footprint / request per second balance.

See more
Get Advice from developers at your company using StackShare Enterprise. Sign up for StackShare Enterprise.
Learn More
Pros of Puma
Pros of Unicorn
  • 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
  • 81
    Fast
  • 59
    Performance
  • 36
    Web server
  • 30
    Very light
  • 30
    Open Source
  • 27
    Rack http server
  • 18
    Load balancing
  • 14
    Great process management

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of Puma
Cons of Unicorn
  • 0
    Uses `select` (limited client count)
  • 4
    Not multithreaded

Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

What is 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.

What is Unicorn?

Unicorn is an HTTP server for Rack applications designed to only serve fast clients on low-latency, high-bandwidth connections and take advantage of features in Unix/Unix-like kernels. Slow clients should only be served by placing a reverse proxy capable of fully buffering both the the request and response in between Unicorn and slow clients.

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Jobs that mention Puma and Unicorn as a desired skillset
What companies use Puma?
What companies use Unicorn?
See which teams inside your own company are using Puma or Unicorn.
Sign up for StackShare EnterpriseLearn More

Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions

Blog Posts

GitHubMySQLSlack+44
109
50655
What are some alternatives to Puma and Unicorn?
Atlas
Atlas is one foundation to manage and provide visibility to your servers, containers, VMs, configuration management, service discovery, and additional operations services.
Panther
It is a convenient standalone library to scrape websites and to run end-to-end tests using real browsers.
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
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 powers numerous large-scale, mission-critical web applications across a diverse range of industries and organizations.
See all alternatives