Z-Man, DHH recently said: "And [_why''s] latest work on sandbox looks stellar. Making it drop-dead easy to run multiple Rails applications in the same Mongrel process without conflicts. Thumbs up to both him and Matz for getting Sandbox on track for inclusion with the next Ruby release." Does that mean what I think it means - that one or more Mongrel processes may one day be able to serve multiple Rails apps? Or something wacky like that? Thanks, Joe Ruby MUDCRAP-CE __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
>From: Joe Ruby <joeat303 at yahoo.com> >Reply-To: mongrel-users at rubyforge.org >To: mongrel-users at rubyforge.org >Subject: [Mongrel] Mongrel and Sandbox >Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 10:28:28 -0700 (PDT) > >Z-Man, > >DHH recently said: > >"And [_why''s] latest work on sandbox looks stellar. >Making it drop-dead easy to run multiple Rails >applications in the same Mongrel process without >conflicts. Thumbs up to both him and Matz for getting >Sandbox on track for inclusion with the next Ruby >release." > >Does that mean what I think it means - that one or >more Mongrel processes may one day be able to serve >multiple Rails apps? Or something wacky like that? > >Thanks, >Joe Ruby >MUDCRAP-CE > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >Mongrel-users mailing list >Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-usersI upgraded my box from FC4 to FC5, now when I visit the url for my app I get , Application error (Rails) This is the production log file, Errno::ENOENT (No such file or directory - /tmp/mysql.sock): /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-1.14.4/lib/active_record/vendor/mysql.rb:104:in `initialize'' MySQL is up and running, everything was fine on FC4... This is my database.yml production: adapter: mysql database: sales username: myuser password: mypw host: localhost Jim
On 9/16/06, Joe Ruby <joeat303 at yahoo.com> wrote:> Z-Man, > > DHH recently said: > > "And [_why''s] latest work on sandbox looks stellar. > Making it drop-dead easy to run multiple Rails > applications in the same Mongrel process without > conflicts. Thumbs up to both him and Matz for getting > Sandbox on track for inclusion with the next Ruby > release." > > Does that mean what I think it means - that one or > more Mongrel processes may one day be able to serve > multiple Rails apps? Or something wacky like that? > > Thanks, > Joe Ruby > MUDCRAP-CEThat''s the idea, I think. Not sure if it''s actually working yet though. -- Rick Olson http://weblog.techno-weenie.net http://mephistoblog.com
He did a very brief demo of it at RailsConf Europe yesterday, unfortunately the projector broke just as he was launching up mongrel but apparently it is basically working. He was running beast and something else in the same mongrel process... just awesome and I cant wait for it. On 9/16/06, Rick Olson <technoweenie at gmail.com> wrote:> On 9/16/06, Joe Ruby <joeat303 at yahoo.com> wrote: > > Z-Man, > > > > DHH recently said: > > > > "And [_why''s] latest work on sandbox looks stellar. > > Making it drop-dead easy to run multiple Rails > > applications in the same Mongrel process without > > conflicts. Thumbs up to both him and Matz for getting > > Sandbox on track for inclusion with the next Ruby > > release." > > > > Does that mean what I think it means - that one or > > more Mongrel processes may one day be able to serve > > multiple Rails apps? Or something wacky like that? > > > > Thanks, > > Joe Ruby > > MUDCRAP-CE > > That''s the idea, I think. Not sure if it''s actually working yet though. > > > -- > Rick Olson > http://weblog.techno-weenie.net > http://mephistoblog.com > _______________________________________________ > Mongrel-users mailing list > Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users >
On Sat, 2006-09-16 at 10:28 -0700, Joe Ruby wrote:> Z-Man, > > DHH recently said: > > "And [_why''s] latest work on sandbox looks stellar. > Making it drop-dead easy to run multiple Rails > applications in the same Mongrel process without > conflicts. Thumbs up to both him and Matz for getting > Sandbox on track for inclusion with the next Ruby > release." >Oh I didn''t know he''d gotten it that together. Nice. Now if Matz could just be bothered to fix those memory leaks and help get rid of the 1024 file limit I think I''d be one happy fellow. :-)> Does that mean what I think it means - that one or > more Mongrel processes may one day be able to serve > multiple Rails apps? Or something wacky like that? >Yep, well for _why it''s at least to run multiple separated camping apps, but Rails is the holy grail for sure. Not sure how incredibly smart and/or stupid this will be but man it''d sure make a few people''s day.> Thanks, > Joe Ruby > MUDCRAP-CE^^^^^^ Hey, I don''t remember you at the last course... -- Zed A. Shaw, MUDCRAP-CE Master Black Belt Sifu http://www.zedshaw.com/ http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/ http://www.lingr.com/room/3yXhqKbfPy8 -- Come get help.
> > MUDCRAP-CE > ^^^^^^ > Hey, I don''t remember you at the last course...Are there already mail-order MUDCRAP certs? -- Rick Olson http://weblog.techno-weenie.net http://mephistoblog.com
On 9/16/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw at zedshaw.com> wrote:> Now if Matz could just be bothered to fix those memory leaks and help > get rid of the 1024 file limit I think I''d be one happy fellow. :-)He asked that the patch for the Hash related leak that I found be committed, so I think that one is taken care of. For the issue with Mutex, I should bring it up on ruby-core, because I don''t know if the behavior or Array, to not realloc on a shift, is intentional or not, so I don''t know whether to contribute a patch to that or to just offer a patch to Mutex to make it use unshift and pop instead of shift and push. Kirk
> -------Original Message------- > From: Rick Olson <technoweenie at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Mongrel] Mongrel and Sandbox > Sent: Sep 16 ''06 16:28 > > > > MUDCRAP-CE > > ^^^^^^ > > Hey, I don''t remember you at the last course... > > Are there already mail-order MUDCRAP certs? > > -- > Rick Olson > http://weblog.techno-weenie.net > http://mephistoblog.comI was not let in on the mudcrap-ce certs mailorder... so the final exam for the mudcrap-ce exam does include having the best house coat out of the entire class, right? :-P Andrew mudcrap-ce --enable super-cow-powers
> Now if Matz could just be bothered to fix thosememory leaks and help> get rid of the 1024 file limit I think I''d be onehappy fellow. :-) Hopefully he''s aware.> > Thanks, > > Joe Ruby > > MUDCRAP-CE > ^^^^^^ > Hey, I don''t remember you at the last course...I was able to finagle me an advance copy of "MUDCRAP-CE in 24 Hours for the Complete Moron." ;P> Zed A. Shaw, MUDCRAP-CE Master Black Belt SifuJoe Ruby MUDCRAP-CE CRUD Pro DHH Owes Me Shit __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 03:19:38PM -0700, Zed Shaw wrote:> Yep, well for _why it''s at least to run multiple separated camping apps, > but Rails is the holy grail for sure.Yes, I can now run Rails, Camping, Nitro, &c, &c, together in the same Mongrel. But the passing of the request into Rails is slow. It''s very hacked right now, but I''m working on it now. * My edited mongrel_rails cycles through a directory, scanning for Rails apps and Camping apps, mounting what it can. * RailsDispatcher is edited to load the app inside a sandbox. * Also, I circumvent use of the Mongrel CGIWrapper, so I can pass the HTTP request string into the app and get back a response string. (It''s just easier to pass strings between sandboxes rather than objects -- until I get a better proxy going between them.) I''m not sure where this stuff is going to go. I think maybe I''ll make a dogbox gem or something that does all that until we''re sure if it''s really suitable for mongrel. Right now memory consumption is bad, but that''s because Rails is loaded separately for each app. Once that''s fixed, this is will be even more smart and/or stupid. _why
I''d volunteer to help you work on/debug this as I think this is applicable to my post about mass rails hosting with mongrel. John On Sep 19, 2006, at 11:03 AM, why the lucky stiff wrote:> On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 03:19:38PM -0700, Zed Shaw wrote: >> Yep, well for _why it''s at least to run multiple separated camping >> apps, >> but Rails is the holy grail for sure. > > Yes, I can now run Rails, Camping, Nitro, &c, &c, together in the > same Mongrel. > But the passing of the request into Rails is slow. It''s very > hacked right now, > but I''m working on it now. > > * My edited mongrel_rails cycles through a directory, scanning for > Rails apps > and Camping apps, mounting what it can. > * RailsDispatcher is edited to load the app inside a sandbox. > * Also, I circumvent use of the Mongrel CGIWrapper, so I can pass > the HTTP > request string into the app and get back a response string. > (It''s just > easier to pass strings between sandboxes rather than objects -- > until I > get a better proxy going between them.) > > I''m not sure where this stuff is going to go. I think maybe I''ll > make a dogbox > gem or something that does all that until we''re sure if it''s really > suitable for > mongrel. > > Right now memory consumption is bad, but that''s because Rails is > loaded > separately for each app. Once that''s fixed, this is will be even > more smart > and/or stupid. > > _why > _______________________________________________ > Mongrel-users mailing list > Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users