Jetty vs Puma

Overview

Puma

Stacks1.2K

Followers265

Votes20

GitHub Stars7.8K

Forks1.5K

Jetty

Stacks510

Followers311

Votes47

Jetty vs Puma: What are the differences?

# Introduction

Key differences between Jetty and Puma:

1. **Architecture**: Jetty is a Java-based web server and servlet container, while Puma is a multi-threaded Ruby web server designed for high concurrency. Jetty follows the Java Servlet API standards, whereas Puma focuses on maximizing performance for Ruby applications.
   
2. **Concurrency Model**: Jetty is designed to handle concurrency by creating a separate thread for each incoming connection. In contrast, Puma uses a thread-pooling model to efficiently manage concurrent requests. This difference in concurrency models impacts how each server handles multiple requests simultaneously.

3. **Language Support**: Jetty is primarily used with Java applications and servlets, while Puma is tailored for Ruby applications. Jetty can also support other languages through various connectors and interfaces, making it more versatile in language support compared to Puma, which is specifically optimized for Ruby.

4. **Configuration Options**: Jetty provides a wide range of configuration options that can be customized to suit different deployment scenarios. On the other hand, Puma offers a simpler configuration setup with fewer options, focusing on ease of use and performance optimization out of the box.

5. **Community and Ecosystem**: Jetty has a strong community of Java developers and a mature ecosystem of tools and extensions that support its usage. In contrast, Puma, being Ruby-specific, has a smaller but dedicated community that focuses on Ruby web development and optimization.

6. **Performance**: In terms of raw performance, Puma is known for its speed and efficiency when handling Ruby applications. Jetty, while capable of high performance, may have additional overhead due to its Java-based architecture. The choice between Jetty and Puma may depend on specific performance requirements and application characteristics.

In Summary, Jetty and Puma differ in architecture, concurrency model, language support, configuration options, community and ecosystem, and performance characteristics, catering to different needs based on the specific requirements of the application.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on Puma, Jetty

Mark

Software Developer at Nouveta

Mar 4, 2022

Needs adviceon

Rails

Ruby

Puma

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.

38.4k views38.4k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Puma	Jetty
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.	Jetty is used in a wide variety of projects and products, both in development and production. Jetty can be easily embedded in devices, tools, frameworks, application servers, and clusters. See the Jetty Powered page for more uses of Jetty.
-	Full-featured and standards-based; Open source and commercially usable; Flexible and extensible; Small footprint; Embeddable; Asynchronous; Enterprise scalable; Dual licensed under Apache and Eclipse
Statistics
GitHub Stars 7.8K	GitHub Stars -
GitHub Forks 1.5K	GitHub Forks -
Stacks 1.2K	Stacks 510
Followers 265	Followers 311
Votes 20	Votes 47
Pros & Cons
Pros 4 Free 3 Convenient 3 Easy 2 Default Rails server 2 Multithreaded Cons 0 Uses `select` (limited client count)	Pros 15 Lightweight 10 Very fast 10 Embeddable 6 Scalable 6 Very thin Cons 0 Student

What are some alternatives to Puma, Jetty?

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.

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.

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.

Apache Tomcat

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

Passenger

Phusion Passenger is a web server and application server, designed to be fast, robust and lightweight. It takes a lot of complexity out of deploying web apps, adds powerful enterprise-grade features that are useful in production, and makes administration much easier and less complex.

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.

lighttpd

lighttpd has a very low memory footprint compared to other webservers and takes care of cpu-load. Its advanced feature-set (FastCGI, CGI, Auth, Output-Compression, URL-Rewriting and many more) make lighttpd the perfect webserver-software for every server that suffers load problems.

Swoole

It is an open source high-performance network framework using an event-driven, asynchronous, non-blocking I/O model which makes it scalable and efficient.

Caddy

Caddy 2 is a powerful, enterprise-ready, open source web server with automatic HTTPS written in Go.

Related Comparisons

Jetty vs Puma: What are the differences?

# Introduction

Key differences between Jetty and Puma:

1. **Architecture**: Jetty is a Java-based web server and servlet container, while Puma is a multi-threaded Ruby web server designed for high concurrency. Jetty follows the Java Servlet API standards, whereas Puma focuses on maximizing performance for Ruby applications.
   
2. **Concurrency Model**: Jetty is designed to handle concurrency by creating a separate thread for each incoming connection. In contrast, Puma uses a thread-pooling model to efficiently manage concurrent requests. This difference in concurrency models impacts how each server handles multiple requests simultaneously.

3. **Language Support**: Jetty is primarily used with Java applications and servlets, while Puma is tailored for Ruby applications. Jetty can also support other languages through various connectors and interfaces, making it more versatile in language support compared to Puma, which is specifically optimized for Ruby.

4. **Configuration Options**: Jetty provides a wide range of configuration options that can be customized to suit different deployment scenarios. On the other hand, Puma offers a simpler configuration setup with fewer options, focusing on ease of use and performance optimization out of the box.

5. **Community and Ecosystem**: Jetty has a strong community of Java developers and a mature ecosystem of tools and extensions that support its usage. In contrast, Puma, being Ruby-specific, has a smaller but dedicated community that focuses on Ruby web development and optimization.

6. **Performance**: In terms of raw performance, Puma is known for its speed and efficiency when handling Ruby applications. Jetty, while capable of high performance, may have additional overhead due to its Java-based architecture. The choice between Jetty and Puma may depend on specific performance requirements and application characteristics.

Jetty vs Puma

Overview