Recently there has been a lot of fuss about the ease of Rails deployment. People made various claims, such as "I''ve deployed PHP, Java, (insert something else here) and Rails. Rails is by far the most painful." and "Java deployment (with Tomcat) is easier." I have no experience with Java deployment. But I have a friend who has worked on several high-end software systems written in J2EE. He says that deploying J2EE apps involves creating a .war file and uploading that to the web container (Tomcat). While uploading is easy, creating the .war file is not, and involves editing tons of XML configuration files. PHP deployment is easy: 1. Upload files to server. 2. There is no step 2. (assuming we don''t have to setup the database; but that''s app-dependent) People say Rails deployment is painful, but I really don''t understand what''s so painful about it: 1. Upload files to server. 2. Setup Mongrel (or lighttpd) on a port. 3. Setup your web server to proxy a virtual host''s request to Mongrel/ lighttpd. It has 2 more steps than PHP, but neither steps are hard. (2) can be done with 1 command. (3) is just copy-pasting some configuration snippets and changing the port numbers. Granted, it took me a while to figure this out. Back in 2005, deployment documentation was quite bad. I expected to be able to integrate Rails into Apache, only to find out that there is no mod_rubyonrails, and that FastCGI on Apache is broken (at least, it was on Fedora 4 with Apache 2). After lots of Googling I eventually settled with lighttpd, and the thing Just Worked(tm). Today, we have tons of books about Rails deployment. And I agree, this setup is not usable for shared hosts, who hosts many many websites on a server. Keeping the Mongrel instances running will require far too much memory. But I still do not understand why people claim that Rails deployment, in general, is hard. I''d like to hear from you why exactly you think Rails deployment is painful, or (if applicable) why it is by far the most painful compared to anything else you''ve tried. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Personally I agree with you, deploying is not hard, but it is really annoying that shared hosts cannot seem to reliably run ruby like they can php(lets not confuse frameworks for languages). I do understand that rails runs better on a VPS, hell it should, anything should run better on a VPS then on a shared system, but sometimes we just aren''t building a site that is that large, that it should require a VPS to run. Also I do get really tired of micro managing all the VPS''s for little clients I''ve done work for, it''s really annoying, and is the main reason I''d like to see Ruby running like php does, with a mod_ruby. There is a mod_ruby, but it shares classes, and hence is no good for shared hosting environments, which kinda defeats the purpose. I don''t even know if rails as a framework is what we should be looking at for these smaller sites, I mean Camping is great, as is Sinatra amongst others. Plus Ruby does make it might easy to roll your own if it''s something small. The issue for me is the dependence on mongrel for even small applications. I love mongrel it rocks and I use it for everything, but if I got a site with like 2 forms and couple of pages that pull small data sets from MySQL what the hell am I using a stack like rails for, and why am I running a VPS? Anyhow just putting it out there, I''m not bitching about Rails, ''cause I love it, it''s got it''s place, but I''d love to be able to use Ruby for absolutely everything, and the only thing stopping me is the lack of support for ruby from shared hosts. And from what I can glean that is due to mod_ruby and it''s issues with shared environments. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I don''t really know what is easier. All I can tell you is that whenever I upload my Rails proyects to Dreamhost they start breaking nobody-know-where. Random Application Error. Its because of the fastcgi. I try many configurations but they all break sooner or later! On Jan 14, 2008 10:20 AM, cammo <mvpaustralia-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Personally I agree with you, deploying is not hard, but it is really > annoying that shared hosts cannot seem to reliably run ruby like they > can php(lets not confuse frameworks for languages). > I do understand that rails runs better on a VPS, hell it should, > anything should run better on a VPS then on a shared system, but > sometimes we just aren''t building a site that is that large, that it > should require a VPS to run. Also I do get really tired of micro > managing all the VPS''s for little clients I''ve done work for, it''s > really annoying, and is the main reason I''d like to see Ruby running > like php does, with a mod_ruby. There is a mod_ruby, but it shares > classes, and hence is no good for shared hosting environments, which > kinda defeats the purpose. > I don''t even know if rails as a framework is what we should be looking > at for these smaller sites, I mean Camping is great, as is Sinatra > amongst others. Plus Ruby does make it might easy to roll your own if > it''s something small. > The issue for me is the dependence on mongrel for even small > applications. I love mongrel it rocks and I use it for everything, but > if I got a site with like 2 forms and couple of pages that pull small > data sets from MySQL what the hell am I using a stack like rails for, > and why am I running a VPS? > > Anyhow just putting it out there, I''m not bitching about Rails, ''cause > I love it, it''s got it''s place, but I''d love to be able to use Ruby > for absolutely everything, and the only thing stopping me is the lack > of support for ruby from shared hosts. And from what I can glean that > is due to mod_ruby and it''s issues with shared environments. > > > >-- --------------------------------------------------------- Javier Quevedo Fernández jquevedo-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Spain +34 618 420 028 Netherlands +31 619 347 865 http://senc.yoteinvoco.com --------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Yup my(and many others) point exactly. In fact the dreamhost guys have been one of many people blogging about the difficulty of dealing with rails in a shared environment. On Jan 14, 8:54 pm, Javier <jquev...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I don''t really know what is easier. All I can tell you is that > whenever I upload my Rails proyects to Dreamhost they start breaking > nobody-know-where. > Random Application Error. Its because of the fastcgi. I try many > configurations but they all break sooner or later! > > On Jan 14, 2008 10:20 AM, cammo <mvpaustra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Personally I agree with you, deploying is not hard, but it is really > > annoying that shared hosts cannot seem to reliably run ruby like they > > can php(lets not confuse frameworks for languages). > > I do understand that rails runs better on a VPS, hell it should, > > anything should run better on a VPS then on a shared system, but > > sometimes we just aren''t building a site that is that large, that it > > should require a VPS to run. Also I do get really tired of micro > > managing all the VPS''s for little clients I''ve done work for, it''s > > really annoying, and is the main reason I''d like to see Ruby running > > like php does, with a mod_ruby. There is a mod_ruby, but it shares > > classes, and hence is no good for shared hosting environments, which > > kinda defeats the purpose. > > I don''t even know if rails as a framework is what we should be looking > > at for these smaller sites, I mean Camping is great, as is Sinatra > > amongst others. Plus Ruby does make it might easy to roll your own if > > it''s something small. > > The issue for me is the dependence on mongrel for even small > > applications. I love mongrel it rocks and I use it for everything, but > > if I got a site with like 2 forms and couple of pages that pull small > > data sets from MySQL what the hell am I using a stack like rails for, > > and why am I running a VPS? > > > Anyhow just putting it out there, I''m not bitching about Rails, ''cause > > I love it, it''s got it''s place, but I''d love to be able to use Ruby > > for absolutely everything, and the only thing stopping me is the lack > > of support for ruby from shared hosts. And from what I can glean that > > is due to mod_ruby and it''s issues with shared environments. > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------- > Javier Quevedo Fernández > jquev...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > Spain +34 618 420 028 > Netherlands +31 619 347 865http://senc.yoteinvoco.com > -----------------------------------------------------------~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
There''s a fundamental difference between hosting a PHP app and a Rails app: the Rails app, because of its relatively large size when the framework code is included, needs to stay resident in memory inbetween requests, whereas a PHP app can typically be loaded from scratch for each request. This means that Rails requires more server resources, and that doesn''t fit well with shared hosting. If you want a $9/month hosting account, Rails is harder. Cheap Rails hosting tends to be problematic. If your app is important enough to justify a VPS, then the problems are relatively few. This does leave some apps with little economic value as problematic for Rails hosting. Michael On Jan 14, 3:20 am, cammo <mvpaustra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Yup my(and many others) point exactly. In fact the dreamhost guys have > been one of many people blogging about the difficulty of dealing with > rails in a shared environment. > > On Jan 14, 8:54 pm, Javier <jquev...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > I don''t really know what is easier. All I can tell you is that > > whenever I upload my Rails proyects to Dreamhost they start breaking > > nobody-know-where. > > Random Application Error. Its because of the fastcgi. I try many > > configurations but they all break sooner or later! > > > On Jan 14, 2008 10:20 AM, cammo <mvpaustra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > Personally I agree with you, deploying is not hard, but it is really > > > annoying that shared hosts cannot seem to reliably run ruby like they > > > can php(lets not confuse frameworks for languages). > > > I do understand that rails runs better on a VPS, hell it should, > > > anything should run better on a VPS then on a shared system, but > > > sometimes we just aren''t building a site that is that large, that it > > > should require a VPS to run. Also I do get really tired of micro > > > managing all the VPS''s for little clients I''ve done work for, it''s > > > really annoying, and is the main reason I''d like to see Ruby running > > > like php does, with a mod_ruby. There is a mod_ruby, but it shares > > > classes, and hence is no good for shared hosting environments, which > > > kinda defeats the purpose. > > > I don''t even know if rails as a framework is what we should be looking > > > at for these smaller sites, I mean Camping is great, as is Sinatra > > > amongst others. Plus Ruby does make it might easy to roll your own if > > > it''s something small. > > > The issue for me is the dependence on mongrel for even small > > > applications. I love mongrel it rocks and I use it for everything, but > > > if I got a site with like 2 forms and couple of pages that pull small > > > data sets from MySQL what the hell am I using a stack like rails for, > > > and why am I running a VPS? > > > > Anyhow just putting it out there, I''m not bitching about Rails, ''cause > > > I love it, it''s got it''s place, but I''d love to be able to use Ruby > > > for absolutely everything, and the only thing stopping me is the lack > > > of support for ruby from shared hosts. And from what I can glean that > > > is due to mod_ruby and it''s issues with shared environments. > > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Javier Quevedo Fernández > > jquev...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > > Spain +34 618 420 028 > > Netherlands +31 619 347 865http://senc.yoteinvoco.com > > -----------------------------------------------------------~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Yeah, it is all about the shared hosts. It''s pretty darn easy to setup Rails in a virtual or dedicated server... but not necessary for the people just starting out with RoR. Perhaps I should start a website (built on rails, lol) to explain to people step-by step how to get Rails working with each shared host... For example, I use GoDaddy. They work GREAT. But absolutely none of the tutorials told me that I could not freeze to any Rails version above 1.2.6 because GoDaddy doesn''t support "gem" just "require_gem". And very few of them even told me where or what to freeze, lol. Thankfully god must have given me the answers. -Ryan On Jan 14, 10:53 am, Michael Slater <m...-04BUtanlfE1BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> There''s a fundamental difference between hosting a PHP app and a Rails > app: the Rails app, because of its relatively large size when the > framework code is included, needs to stay resident in memory inbetween > requests, whereas a PHP app can typically be loaded from scratch for > each request. This means that Rails requires more server resources, > and that doesn''t fit well with shared hosting. > > If you want a $9/month hosting account, Rails is harder. Cheap Rails > hosting tends to be problematic. If your app is important enough to > justify a VPS, then the problems are relatively few. This does leave > some apps with little economic value as problematic for Rails hosting. > > Michael > > On Jan 14, 3:20 am, cammo <mvpaustra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > Yup my(and many others) point exactly. In fact the dreamhost guys have > > been one of many people blogging about the difficulty of dealing with > > rails in a shared environment. > > > On Jan 14, 8:54 pm, Javier <jquev...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > I don''t really know what is easier. All I can tell you is that > > > whenever I upload my Rails proyects to Dreamhost they start breaking > > > nobody-know-where. > > > Random Application Error. Its because of the fastcgi. I try many > > > configurations but they all break sooner or later! > > > > On Jan 14, 2008 10:20 AM, cammo <mvpaustra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > Personally I agree with you, deploying is not hard, but it is really > > > > annoying that shared hosts cannot seem to reliably run ruby like they > > > > can php(lets not confuse frameworks for languages). > > > > I do understand that rails runs better on a VPS, hell it should, > > > > anything should run better on a VPS then on a shared system, but > > > > sometimes we just aren''t building a site that is that large, that it > > > > should require a VPS to run. Also I do get really tired of micro > > > > managing all the VPS''s for little clients I''ve done work for, it''s > > > > really annoying, and is the main reason I''d like to see Ruby running > > > > like php does, with a mod_ruby. There is a mod_ruby, but it shares > > > > classes, and hence is no good for shared hosting environments, which > > > > kinda defeats the purpose. > > > > I don''t even know if rails as a framework is what we should be looking > > > > at for these smaller sites, I mean Camping is great, as is Sinatra > > > > amongst others. Plus Ruby does make it might easy to roll your own if > > > > it''s something small. > > > > The issue for me is the dependence on mongrel for even small > > > > applications. I love mongrel it rocks and I use it for everything, but > > > > if I got a site with like 2 forms and couple of pages that pull small > > > > data sets from MySQL what the hell am I using a stack like rails for, > > > > and why am I running a VPS? > > > > > Anyhow just putting it out there, I''m not bitching about Rails, ''cause > > > > I love it, it''s got it''s place, but I''d love to be able to use Ruby > > > > for absolutely everything, and the only thing stopping me is the lack > > > > of support for ruby from shared hosts. And from what I can glean that > > > > is due to mod_ruby and it''s issues with shared environments. > > > > -- > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > Javier Quevedo Fernández > > > jquev...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > > > Spain+34 618 420 028 > > > Netherlands+31 619 347 865http://senc.yoteinvoco.com > > > -----------------------------------------------------------~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
It is harder than PHP, especially when you factor in mongrels die, or memory leak often and need to be restarted. Java is still a bitch to deploy imho. When you jump into the whole apache/mongrel/pound/monit voodo it does begin to become a little overwhelming for new developers. Hopefully some projects like swiftiply and rubinius will go a long way to alleviate these problems. On Jan 14, 2008 1:07 AM, Hongli Lai <honglilai-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Recently there has been a lot of fuss about the ease of Rails > deployment. People made various claims, such as "I''ve deployed PHP, > Java, (insert something else here) and Rails. Rails is by far the most > painful." and "Java deployment (with Tomcat) is easier." > > I have no experience with Java deployment. But I have a friend who has > worked on several high-end software systems written in J2EE. He says > that deploying J2EE apps involves creating a .war file and uploading > that to the web container (Tomcat). While uploading is easy, creating > the .war file is not, and involves editing tons of XML configuration > files. > > PHP deployment is easy: > 1. Upload files to server. > 2. There is no step 2. (assuming we don''t have to setup the database; > but that''s app-dependent) > > People say Rails deployment is painful, but I really don''t understand > what''s so painful about it: > 1. Upload files to server. > 2. Setup Mongrel (or lighttpd) on a port. > 3. Setup your web server to proxy a virtual host''s request to Mongrel/ > lighttpd. > It has 2 more steps than PHP, but neither steps are hard. (2) can be > done with 1 command. (3) is just copy-pasting some configuration > snippets and changing the port numbers. > > Granted, it took me a while to figure this out. Back in 2005, > deployment documentation was quite bad. I expected to be able to > integrate Rails into Apache, only to find out that there is no > mod_rubyonrails, and that FastCGI on Apache is broken (at least, it > was on Fedora 4 with Apache 2). After lots of Googling I eventually > settled with lighttpd, and the thing Just Worked(tm). Today, we have > tons of books about Rails deployment. > And I agree, this setup is not usable for shared hosts, who hosts many > many websites on a server. Keeping the Mongrel instances running will > require far too much memory. But I still do not understand why people > claim that Rails deployment, in general, is hard. > > I''d like to hear from you why exactly you think Rails deployment is > painful, or (if applicable) why it is by far the most painful compared > to anything else you''ve tried. > > >-- -------------------- seth at subimage interactive ----- http://sublog.subimage.com ----- Cashboard - Estimates, invoices, and time tracking software - for free! http://www.getcashboard.com ----- Substruct - Open source RoR e-commerce software. http://dev.subimage.com/projects/substruct --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Jan 14, 2008 3:16 PM, subimage interactive <subimage-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> It is harder than PHP,Everything is relative. Imagine way back when you didn''t know PHP. Putting a new PHP app out there was "hard" then, was it not? Making sure your host had the latest PHPLib so you could have sessions, remember that? I recall trying to find a web host that would even host PHP. Perl/CGI was all that was available at the time, no one really wanted to mess with PHP hosting. See any similarities with Rails today? -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Michael Slater wrote:> There''s a fundamental difference between hosting a PHP app and a Rails > app: the Rails app, because of its relatively large size when the > framework code is included, needs to stay resident in memory inbetween > requests, whereas a PHP app can typically be loaded from scratch for > each request. This means that Rails requires more server resources, > and that doesn''t fit well with shared hosting. > > If you want a $9/month hosting account, Rails is harder. Cheap Rails > hosting tends to be problematic. If your app is important enough to > justify a VPS, then the problems are relatively few. This does leave > some apps with little economic value as problematic for Rails hosting. > > Michael >I find that the cheap plans at RailsPlayground and more importantly, HostingRails (at about US$5) work well enough for small sites. I''ve got a Radiant site deployed using FastCGI and it works well enough for the hits that I get. Cheers Mohit. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---