I see there''s Mongrel support. Any chance for passenger? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Gary, There is always a chance, but it''s not a high priority at this time. We are considering a move to RACK as a http server abstraction, which might help at some point in the future. Assuming, there is probably more impetus to add passenger to rack than to puppet. Regards, Andrew On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:20 AM, gary <garyyuen@gmail.com> wrote:> > > I see there''s Mongrel support. Any chance for passenger? > > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Thanks for the update Andrew! What do you think of Webrick? From what I read, it might start to put a considerable amount of load on a machine at around 50+ clients? I think we have 30-40 on a quad core server that''s has quite a few services running. I haven''t tried to profile puppet and see how much memory/cpu it uses. On Aug 21, 4:34 pm, "Andrew Shafer" <and...@reductivelabs.com> wrote:> Gary, > > There is always a chance, but it''s not a high priority at this time. > > We are considering a move to RACK as a http server abstraction, which might > help at some point in the future. Assuming, there is probably more impetus > to add passenger to rack than to puppet. > > Regards, > Andrew > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:20 AM, gary <garyy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I see there''s Mongrel support. Any chance for passenger?--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
The only benefit (as I see it) to using WEBrick is that it does the SSL for itself. I wouldn''t run it in production, anywhere. I use it personally for development on Puppet, for testing locally. Besides, isn''t Passenger a bit bloaty? You obviously have the bloat of apache there, too. On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:19 PM, gary <garyyuen@gmail.com> wrote:> > Thanks for the update Andrew! > > What do you think of Webrick? From what I read, it might start to put > a considerable amount of load on a machine at around 50+ clients? I > think we have 30-40 on a quad core server that''s has quite a few > services running. I haven''t tried to profile puppet and see how much > memory/cpu it uses. > > On Aug 21, 4:34 pm, "Andrew Shafer" <and...@reductivelabs.com> wrote: > > Gary, > > > > There is always a chance, but it''s not a high priority at this time. > > > > We are considering a move to RACK as a http server abstraction, which > might > > help at some point in the future. Assuming, there is probably more > impetus > > to add passenger to rack than to puppet. > > > > Regards, > > Andrew > > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:20 AM, gary <garyy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I see there''s Mongrel support. Any chance for passenger? > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:47 AM, AJ Christensen <aj@junglist.gen.nz> wrote:> The only benefit (as I see it) to using WEBrick is that it does the SSL for > itself. I wouldn''t run it in production, anywhere. I use it personally for > development on Puppet, for testing locally. > > Besides, isn''t Passenger a bit bloaty? You obviously have the bloat of > apache there, too.I would guess for small-medium shops the simplicity of mod_rails (Passenger) will more than make up for the extra CPU cycles and/or memory it may take to run. There is a reason Apache is the #1 web server. (It was first, there are tons of modules and lot''s of people know how to use it). Cheers, -Brian> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:19 PM, gary <garyyuen@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the update Andrew! >> >> What do you think of Webrick? From what I read, it might start to put >> a considerable amount of load on a machine at around 50+ clients? I >> think we have 30-40 on a quad core server that''s has quite a few >> services running. I haven''t tried to profile puppet and see how much >> memory/cpu it uses. >> >> On Aug 21, 4:34 pm, "Andrew Shafer" <and...@reductivelabs.com> wrote: >> > Gary, >> > >> > There is always a chance, but it''s not a high priority at this time. >> > >> > We are considering a move to RACK as a http server abstraction, which >> > might >> > help at some point in the future. Assuming, there is probably more >> > impetus >> > to add passenger to rack than to puppet. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Andrew >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:20 AM, gary <garyy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > I see there''s Mongrel support. Any chance for passenger? >> > > > > >-- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_New_User_FAQ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@gmail.com> wrote:>> Besides, isn''t Passenger a bit bloaty? You obviously have the bloat of >> apache there, too. > > I would guess for small-medium shops the simplicity of mod_rails > (Passenger) will more than make up for the extra CPU cycles and/or > memory it may take to run. There is a reason Apache is the #1 web > server. (It was first, there are tons of modules and lot''s of people > know how to use it).Passenger + Ruby Enterprise Edition would result in a net < 30% or so memory footprint decrease per child. This is mostly due to the additional garbage collection fixes present in Ruby Enterprise Edition, which make a forking/pre-forking ruby not a total waste of time (or, at least, a waste of time compared to just running a bunch of mongrels behind a reverse proxy.) So all told, you would probably wind up with *less* bloat with a Passenger setup than you would with an Apache + mongrel setup. Adam -- HJK Solutions - We Launch Startups - http://www.hjksolutions.com Adam Jacob, Senior Partner T: (206) 508-4759 E: adam@hjksolutions.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Wow trust the boss to embarass.. How much do they charge for EE? On 22/08/2008, at 6:00 AM, "Adam Jacob" <adam@hjksolutions.com> wrote:> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> Besides, isn''t Passenger a bit bloaty? You obviously have the >>> bloat of >>> apache there, too. >> >> I would guess for small-medium shops the simplicity of mod_rails >> (Passenger) will more than make up for the extra CPU cycles and/or >> memory it may take to run. There is a reason Apache is the #1 web >> server. (It was first, there are tons of modules and lot''s of people >> know how to use it). > > Passenger + Ruby Enterprise Edition would result in a net < 30% or so > memory footprint decrease per child. > > This is mostly due to the additional garbage collection fixes present > in Ruby Enterprise Edition, which make a forking/pre-forking ruby not > a total waste of time (or, at least, a waste of time compared to just > running a bunch of mongrels behind a reverse proxy.) > > So all told, you would probably wind up with *less* bloat with a > Passenger setup than you would with an Apache + mongrel setup. > > Adam > > -- > HJK Solutions - We Launch Startups - http://www.hjksolutions.com > Adam Jacob, Senior Partner > T: (206) 508-4759 E: adam@hjksolutions.com > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 5:06 PM, AJ <aj@junglist.gen.nz> wrote:> > Wow trust the boss to embarass..Ha!> How much do they charge for EE?It''s free! http://www.rubyenterpriseedition.com To take advantage of it, you just need to do: if GC.respond_to(:copy_on_write_friendly=) GC.copy_on_write_friendly = true end Before you call fork. Adam> On 22/08/2008, at 6:00 AM, "Adam Jacob" <adam@hjksolutions.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> Besides, isn''t Passenger a bit bloaty? You obviously have the >>>> bloat of >>>> apache there, too. >>> >>> I would guess for small-medium shops the simplicity of mod_rails >>> (Passenger) will more than make up for the extra CPU cycles and/or >>> memory it may take to run. There is a reason Apache is the #1 web >>> server. (It was first, there are tons of modules and lot''s of people >>> know how to use it). >> >> Passenger + Ruby Enterprise Edition would result in a net < 30% or so >> memory footprint decrease per child. >> >> This is mostly due to the additional garbage collection fixes present >> in Ruby Enterprise Edition, which make a forking/pre-forking ruby not >> a total waste of time (or, at least, a waste of time compared to just >> running a bunch of mongrels behind a reverse proxy.) >> >> So all told, you would probably wind up with *less* bloat with a >> Passenger setup than you would with an Apache + mongrel setup. >> >> Adam >> >> -- >> HJK Solutions - We Launch Startups - http://www.hjksolutions.com >> Adam Jacob, Senior Partner >> T: (206) 508-4759 E: adam@hjksolutions.com >> >> > > > > >-- HJK Solutions - We Launch Startups - http://www.hjksolutions.com Adam Jacob, Senior Partner T: (206) 508-4759 E: adam@hjksolutions.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---