Hi, I am trying to decide which Linux OS to use to implement rails server. I don''t know if Debian is better or CentOS is better. Which one is easier to install, update and maintain rails server? Also, which rails application server do you recommend besides passenger with apache 2? Thanks!
kitty00 wrote:> Hi, > > I am trying to decide which Linux OS to use to implement rails server. > I don''t know if Debian is better or CentOS is better. Which one is > easier to install, update and maintain rails server?I''d recommend Ubuntu. Everything just works.> > Also, which rails application server do you recommend besides > passenger with apache 2?Passenger is a great choice. I''ve heard good things about JRuby with the Glassfish gem, but I use Passenger and Ruby EE myself.> > Thanks!Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
I''ve had no issues with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS. That''s running Rails 2.1.0, ruby 1.8.6, nginx, mongrel_cluster, and MySQL. And Ubuntu 9.04 is running fine at home as well with Rails 2.3.2, ruby 1.8.6, nginx, mongrel_cluster, MySQL. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
richard-bTd+FtbKLGt02iOg2JU2CQ@public.gmane.org
2009-Sep-29 21:29 UTC
Re: Rails server on linux
Have running on Ubuntu 9.04, Rails 2.3.3, ruby 1.9.1p243. Only problem is I cannot get mongrel web server to run on 1.9.1p243. Also running on Debian, with ruby 1.8.6 Rails 2.3.4 Cheers> > Hi, > > I am trying to decide which Linux OS to use to implement rails server. > I don''t know if Debian is better or CentOS is better. Which one is > easier to install, update and maintain rails server? > > Also, which rails application server do you recommend besides > passenger with apache 2? > > Thanks! > > >
Ar Chron wrote:> I''ve had no issues with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS. > That''s running Rails 2.1.0, ruby 1.8.6, nginx, mongrel_cluster, and > MySQL. > > And Ubuntu 9.04 is running fine at home as well with Rails 2.3.2, ruby > 1.8.6, nginx, mongrel_cluster, MySQL.I''ve never used Nginx (well, except on a client''s box where I didn''t really have to touch that part), partly because last time I tried to read the docs, they were mostly по-русский, and my Russian just isn''t that good. Also, I usually seem to need Apache anyway for other things on the same box. What''s the advantage of Nginx? Less resource-heavy? Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:41 PM, kitty00 <yanlu06-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I don''t know if Debian is better or CentOS is better.99% of the software you find inside will be the same. Every Linux distro uses the same glibc, same gcc, same Linux kernel, only difference being the packages are slightly different versions based on when the distro was published. The _big_ difference in Linux distros is the package management. Your two main options are rpm or dpkg. I prefer dpkg.> Also, which rails application server do you recommend besides > passenger with apache 2?Nginx + mongrel cluster works pretty well for me. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/
kitty00 wrote:> Hi, > > I am trying to decide which Linux OS to use to implement rails server. > I don''t know if Debian is better or CentOS is better. Which one is > easier to install, update and maintain rails server? > > Also, which rails application server do you recommend besides > passenger with apache 2?I pretty much agree with the others, for easy of use go with Ubuntu. I am using x86_64 Kubuntu 9.04 which is a KDE version of Ubuntu, the package manager makes installation a breeze.> > Thanks!-- Kind Regards, Rajinder Yadav http://DevMentor.org Do Good ~ Share Freely
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:41 PM, kitty00 <yanlu06-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Hi, > > I am trying to decide which Linux OS to use to implement rails server. > I don''t know if Debian is better or CentOS is better. Which one is > easier to install, update and maintain rails server?I''ve had some problems with Debian and Ubuntu in what comes to the version of the rubygems package. Usually it''s outdated and if you need too new gems versions you will have problems. My recommendation is alwasy Debian for a server (Even when I use Arch Linux on all my workstations). But I strongly suggest you to only install rubygems from Debian''s package repository and then manage your gems with the "gem" command, since rubygems are distribution independant, you shouldn''t base your installation on another package management that the gem itself.> Also, which rails application server do you recommend besides > passenger with apache 2?I think Apache + Passenger is the best choice. Easy to set up and maintain, besides nobody can argue apache''s history on stability and performance. Hope it helps -- Leonardo Mateo. There''s no place like ~
Thank you for the suggestion! I do prefer Debian as a server. On Sep 30, 3:05 am, Leonardo Mateo <leonardoma...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:41 PM,kitty00<yanl...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > I am trying to decide which Linux OS to use to implement rails server. > > I don''t know if Debian is better or CentOS is better. Which one is > > easier to install, update and maintain rails server? > > I''ve had some problems with Debian and Ubuntu in what comes to the > version of the rubygems package. Usually it''s outdated and if you need > too new gems versions you will have problems. > My recommendation is alwasy Debian for a server (Even when I use Arch > Linux on all my workstations). But I strongly suggest you to only > install rubygems from Debian''s package repository and then manage your > gems with the "gem" command, since rubygems are distribution > independant, you shouldn''t base your installation on another package > management that the gem itself. > > > Also, which rails application server do you recommend besides > > passenger with apache 2? > > I think Apache + Passenger is the best choice. Easy to set up and > maintain, besides nobody can argue apache''s history on stability and > performance. > > Hope it helps > > -- > Leonardo Mateo. > There''s no place like ~
Thank you for the clarification! On Sep 29, 4:52 pm, Greg Donald <gdon...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:41 PM,kitty00<yanl...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > I don''t know if Debian is better or CentOS is better. > > 99% of the software you find inside will be the same. Every Linux > distro uses the same glibc, same gcc, same Linux kernel, only > difference being the packages are slightly different versions based on > when the distro was published. > > The _big_ difference in Linux distros is the package management. Your > two main options are rpm or dpkg. I prefer dpkg. > > > Also, which rails application server do you recommend besides > > passenger with apache 2? > > Nginx + mongrel cluster works pretty well for me. > > -- > Greg Donaldhttp://destiney.com/
> I''ve had some problems with Debian and Ubuntu in what comes to the > version of the rubygems package. Usually it''s outdated and if you need > too new gems versions you will have problems.Install rubygems manually, always, period.> I think Apache + Passenger is the best choice.Nginx + Passenger. Nothing beats it, unless you have some specific module requirement. I use Debian on my server. I''ve had a major issue with the Ruby version in Etch which was too old, now I''m on Lenny, and everything is fine. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Fernando Perez wrote:> >> I''ve had some problems with Debian and Ubuntu in what comes to the >> version of the rubygems package. Usually it''s outdated and if you need >> too new gems versions you will have problems. > Install rubygems manually, always, period.I don''t seem to recall any problems on Ubuntu with installing rubygems itself from the package manager. (Of course, then I use rubygems, not the package manager, to install specific gems.)> > >> I think Apache + Passenger is the best choice. > Nginx + Passenger. Nothing beats it, unless you have some specific > module requirement.I''ll try that sometime. For the second time in this thread, though: why is Nginx better? Just speed? Resource usage? Maintainability? Something else?> > I use Debian on my server. I''ve had a major issue with the Ruby version > in Etch which was too old, now I''m on Lenny, and everything is fine.Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser <rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I''ll try that sometime. For the second time in this thread, though: why > is Nginx better? Just speed?It''s the fastest I''ve ever used.> Resource usage?It uses the least memory of anything I''ve tried> Maintainability?The configuration syntax is very terse, especially compared to Apache.> Something else?All the cool kids are using it. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/
Greg Donald wrote:> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser > <rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> I''ll try that sometime. �For the second time in this thread, though: why >> is Nginx better? �Just speed? > > It''s the fastest I''ve ever used. > >> Resource usage? > > It uses the least memory of anything I''ve tried > >> Maintainability? > > The configuration syntax is very terse, especially compared to Apache. > >> Something else? > > All the cool kids are using it.Definitely worth a look then. I''m about to set up a new dev server, so I think I''ll give it a try.> > > -- > Greg Donald > http://destiney.com/Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Thanks! I will give it a try! On Oct 1, 2:54 pm, Greg Donald <gdon...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser > > <rails-mailing-l...-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > I''ll try that sometime. For the second time in this thread, though: why > > is Nginx better? Just speed? > > It''s the fastest I''ve ever used. > > > Resource usage? > > It uses the least memory of anything I''ve tried > > > Maintainability? > > The configuration syntax is very terse, especially compared to Apache. > > > Something else? > > All the cool kids are using it. > > -- > Greg Donaldhttp://destiney.com/