Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Microsoft IIS vs Puma: What are the differences?
# Introduction
1. **Scalability**:
Microsoft IIS is more suited for large scale enterprise applications due to its ability to handle a high volume of traffic efficiently, while Puma is more commonly used for smaller to medium-sized applications.
2. **Supported platforms**:
Microsoft IIS is primarily designed to run on Windows servers, while Puma is designed to work on Unix-based systems like Linux.
3. **Language support**:
Microsoft IIS is optimized for hosting applications built on the .NET framework, while Puma is more commonly used for hosting Ruby applications.
4. **Configuration flexibility**:
Microsoft IIS offers a more user-friendly graphical interface for configuration, while Puma requires more manual configuration through code or configuration files.
5. **Resource consumption**:
Microsoft IIS tends to consume more system resources compared to Puma, making it less efficient in terms of resource utilization.
6. **Community support**:
Puma has a more active open-source community that regularly contributes to its development and provides support, whereas Microsoft IIS has more official support channels provided by Microsoft.
In Summary, Microsoft IIS and Puma differ in terms of scalability, supported platforms, language support, configuration flexibility, resource consumption, and community support.
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.
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.
I am diving into web development, both front and back end. I feel comfortable with administration, scripting and moderate coding in bash, Python and C++, but I am also a Windows fan (i love inner conflict). What are the votes on web servers? IIS is expensive and restrictive (has Windows adoption of open source changed this?) Apache has the history but seems to be at the root of most of my Infosec issues, and I know nothing about nginx (is it too new to rely on?). And no, I don't know what I want to do on the web explicitly, but hosting and data storage (both cloud and tape) are possibilities. Ready, aim fire!
I would pick nginx over both IIS and Apace HTTP Server any day. Combine it with docker, and as you grow maybe even traefik, and you'll have a really flexible solution for serving http content where you can take sites and projects up and down without effort, easily move it between systems and dont have to handle any dependencies on your actual local machine.
Pros of Microsoft IIS
- Great with .net83
- I'm forced to use iis55
- Use nginx27
- Azure integration18
- Best for ms technologyes ms bullshit15
- Fast10
- Reliable6
- Performance6
- Powerful4
- Simple to configure3
- Webserver3
- Easy setup2
- Shipped with Windows Server1
- Ssl integration1
- Security1
- Охуенный1
Pros of Puma
- Free4
- Convenient3
- Easy3
- Multithreaded2
- Consumes less memory than Unicorn2
- Default Rails server2
- First-class support for WebSockets2
- Lightweight1
- Fast1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Microsoft IIS
- Hard to set up1
Cons of Puma
- Uses `select` (limited client count)0