Rails - May 2007 - Mongrel vs Apache with Mongrel

Hi,

Is there any point in running Apache in front of Mongrel if you are
not running a Mongrel Cluster?

I have a small app with only a few users and currently just using
standalone Mongrel. I cant really see any advantage of putting it
behind Apache.

Am I missing something?

Cheers
Giorgio


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

> Is there any point in running Apache in front of Mongrel if you are
> not running a Mongrel Cluster?
>
> I have a small app with only a few users and currently just using
> standalone Mongrel. I cant really see any advantage of putting it
> behind Apache.
>
> Am I missing something?
Nope.  If you''re traffic isn''t high enough to warrant having
apache serve
the static files, there''s not much reason to do this.

But without a cluster you can only serve *one* rails request at a time. 
Again, if traffic isn''t high enough this might not be a problem either.

But say your small app is a video archive... one user uploading a video 
will block all the other rails requests.

But if it''s working out for you, there''s no reason to change
it now.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Oh, that''s quite nice to know. My current little project is only ever
going
to have one user at a time, because it''s running on a small intranet,
so
it''s good that Mongrel will do the job just fine. I might have to have
non-programmers starting it up some of the time, and my exe startup program
(using NSIS) will be much easier to write.

On 02/05/07, Philip Hallstrom
<rails-SUcgGwS4C16SUMMaM/qcSw@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>
>
> > Is there any point in running Apache in front of Mongrel if you are
> > not running a Mongrel Cluster?
> >
> > I have a small app with only a few users and currently just using
> > standalone Mongrel. I cant really see any advantage of putting it
> > behind Apache.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
> Nope.  If you''re traffic isn''t high enough to warrant
having apache serve
> the static files, there''s not much reason to do this.
>
> But without a cluster you can only serve *one* rails request at a time.
> Again, if traffic isn''t high enough this might not be a problem
either.
>
> But say your small app is a video archive... one user uploading a video
> will block all the other rails requests.
>
> But if it''s working out for you, there''s no reason to
change it now.
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---