Sidekiq vs Subserver: What are the differences?

# Introduction
This Markdown code provides a comparison between Sidekiq and Subserver, highlighting key differences between the two.

# 1. Scalability:
Sidekiq is known for scalability, allowing multiple queues to be processed concurrently, while Subserver might have limitations in handling high volumes of jobs due to its single-threaded nature.

# 2. Persistence:
Sidekiq uses Redis for job persistence, ensuring that jobs are not lost even during system failures, whereas Subserver may rely on less robust methods for job persistence.

# 3. Community Support:
Sidekiq has a larger and more active community, providing better resources, documentation, and support compared to Subserver, which may have a smaller user base and limited community contributions.

# 4. Performance:
In terms of performance, Sidekiq is generally faster in processing jobs and has been optimized for efficient job execution, whereas Subserver might have slower processing speeds due to its architecture.

# 5. Ecosystem Integration:
Sidekiq integrates seamlessly with other tools and frameworks in the Ruby ecosystem, offering greater compatibility and flexibility, while Subserver might have limited integration options or require additional work for compatibility with existing systems.

# 6. Maintenance and Upkeep:
Sidekiq typically receives regular updates and improvements, ensuring stability and security, whereas Subserver may have less frequent updates or lack ongoing maintenance support, potentially leading to issues in the long run.

In Summary, this Markdown code highlights key differences between Sidekiq and Subserver in terms of scalability, persistence, community support, performance, ecosystem integration, and maintenance.