Hi All, We are building a maps based site in which we serve out map tiles created by us. The entire application is working well enough and we have followed through on most of the best Rails practices to speed up things. We have also now gone through the list of YSlow and typical HTTP practices to further reduce the time spent in the application. I guess it''s now time to go beyond the design and look at what can be done with the servers. We are using a traditional Apache + Mongrel Cluster for deployment at this time. I have been reading and Thin looks attractive, as do Nginx and Lighttpd. I am wondering what we should look at next. Serving map data requires us to server a number of tiles (256 x 256 pixels each) to create the map the user sees. Naturally, we will add "expires" headers, etc. so that the client caches it (if it can). We are just wondering if there is a recommended way to reduce the time it takes to serve files. The tiles are served from a complex directory structure on four assets domains. Is there a "very fast static file server" that you would recommend us to use? Any experience or guidance would be great.. Thanks, Mohit. 1/9/2010 | 3:59 PM. -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
I can''t help myself from asking, why did you choose rails for this in the first place? On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Mohit Sindhwani <mo_mail-RxrYI66vbj0AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hi All, > > We are building a maps based site in which we serve out map tiles created > by us. The entire application is working well enough and we have followed > through on most of the best Rails practices to speed up things. We have > also now gone through the list of YSlow and typical HTTP practices to > further reduce the time spent in the application. > > I guess it''s now time to go beyond the design and look at what can be done > with the servers. We are using a traditional Apache + Mongrel Cluster for > deployment at this time. > > I have been reading and Thin looks attractive, as do Nginx and Lighttpd. I > am wondering what we should look at next. > > Serving map data requires us to server a number of tiles (256 x 256 pixels > each) to create the map the user sees. Naturally, we will add "expires" > headers, etc. so that the client caches it (if it can). We are just > wondering if there is a recommended way to reduce the time it takes to serve > files. > > The tiles are served from a complex directory structure on four assets > domains. Is there a "very fast static file server" that you would recommend > us to use? Any experience or guidance would be great.. > > Thanks, > Mohit. > 1/9/2010 | 3:59 PM. > > -- > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > >-- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Yeah, this isn''t really a rails question. However, you should look at using something like Varnish http://varnish-cache.org/ to serve the static files. On Sep 1, 8:59 am, Mohit Sindhwani <mo_m...-RxrYI66vbj0AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hi All, > > We are building a maps based site in which we serve out map tiles > created by us. The entire application is working well enough and we > have followed through on most of the best Rails practices to speed up > things. We have also now gone through the list of YSlow and typical > HTTP practices to further reduce the time spent in the application. > > I guess it''s now time to go beyond the design and look at what can be > done with the servers. We are using a traditional Apache + Mongrel > Cluster for deployment at this time. > > I have been reading and Thin looks attractive, as do Nginx and > Lighttpd. I am wondering what we should look at next. > > Serving map data requires us to server a number of tiles (256 x 256 > pixels each) to create the map the user sees. Naturally, we will add > "expires" headers, etc. so that the client caches it (if it can). We > are just wondering if there is a recommended way to reduce the time it > takes to serve files. > > The tiles are served from a complex directory structure on four assets > domains. Is there a "very fast static file server" that you would > recommend us to use? Any experience or guidance would be great.. > > Thanks, > Mohit. > 1/9/2010 | 3:59 PM.-- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@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.
I would say don''t over optimize prematurely. Seems you have done the basics, if the site does not seem slow why spend time or trying to solve a problem that does not exist yet. As a side note you should keep an eye on http://railslab.newrelic.com/. They have made some good resources to scale rails apps. Also nginx infront of apache is quite useful for serving up static files. nginx is lot better at serving static files. nginx will also eventually help you out in load balancing across web servers and help you avoid more complex solutions for sometime. thanks, Adi -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 1/9/2010 4:29 PM, Joe Developer wrote:> I can''t help myself from asking, why did you choose rails for this in > the first place?There''s nothing wrong with Rails for the task of building a maps based application.. instead of Google Maps or Bing Maps, we use our own based on data that we have. We use OpenLayers for the client side (Javascript) and store data in a database... Specifically, which aspect of this would you think does not map to Rails? Cheers, Mohit. 2/9/2010 | 5:21 PM. -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 1/9/2010 5:18 PM, Dermot Brennan wrote:> Yeah, this isn''t really a rails question. > > However, you should look at using something like Varnish http://varnish-cache.org/ > to serve the static files.Thanks - Varnish had not yet crossed my mind :) Cheers, Mohit. 2/9/2010 | 5:23 PM. -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 1/9/2010 7:00 PM, Adi wrote:> I would say don''t over optimize prematurely. Seems you have done the > basics, if the site does not seem slow why spend time or trying to > solve a problem that does not exist yet. > > As a side note you should keep an eye on > http://railslab.newrelic.com/. They have made some good resources to > scale rails apps. > > Also nginx infront of apache is quite useful for serving up static > files. nginx is lot better at serving static files. nginx will also > eventually help you out in load balancing across web servers and help > you avoid more complex solutions for sometime. >Thanks, Adi. We are just in that phase where we have a bit of time to look at the final set of optimizations before we do the final sizing of the hardware for the projected load. Thanks for the links - we will start to look at these now... Cheers, Mohit. 2/9/2010 | 5:25 PM. -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.