No doubt Wuby is thinner then thin. All this in one ruby file is pretty impressive. But still, Thin is ~800 LOC and Wuby is ~500 LOC. And I’d be very surprised that wuby can be faster then thin because wuby still uses threads and ruby tcpserver like mongrel do. But I think your server could be faster then mongrel indeed.

I did some quick benchmarks serving a simple static file:

ab -n5000 -c3

wuby: 1363.33 req/sec
thin: 2676.57 req/sec

ab -n5000 -c100

wuby: crashes after 1299 requests
thin: 3561.92 req/sec

nice try

also you should fix that directory traversal security hole, I can:
curl http://localhost:8080/../../../../etc/passwd

I challenge Thin(and Mongrel) to a duel!

Wuby consists of a single (self-contained), open source ruby file (12k) with no config files and it even includes an Amazon-like simple DB hashing framework built-in. This allows you to deploy a Ruby web application without a database or other web server software (such as Apache, Mongrel, Webrick, or Lighttpd). You can, however, assign wuby a port id and direct traffic to it from other servers.

Wuby.org has been running solid on Wuby (without a restart) since it’s debut on Ruby Inside on November 19th - http://www.rubyinside.com/wuby-another-light-weight-web-framework-for-ruby-654.html

Let the duel begin

I take note to update your page (can I write Thin is faster then a jet plane?).

And if you have any good updates, please update the WikiVS comparisons as well. You’re the one who knows Thin’s advantages the best!