I see that the RubyOnRails.com site has migrated to Mongrel with Apache as a front-end proxy. Is that now the/a recommended setup for Rails apps? We''re still using FCGI but I''m always interested to learn more about other folk''s successful deployment choices. Across all of our sites we''re pumping out about 300k pages per day so anything that saves memory or has performance benefits is a huge win for us. Cheers, Hunter
On 12/06/06, HH <lists@lastonepicked.com> wrote:> Across all of our sites we''re pumping out about 300k pages per day so > anything that saves memory or has performance benefits is a huge win for us.Have a look at: http://blog.innerewut.de/articles/2006/04/21/scaling-rails-with-apache-2-2-mod_proxy_balancer-and-mongrel if you haven''t already. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/
On Jun 11, 2006, at 10:36 PM, HH wrote:> I see that the RubyOnRails.com site has migrated to Mongrel with > Apache as a > front-end proxy. > > Is that now the/a recommended setup for Rails apps? We''re still > using FCGI > but I''m always interested to learn more about other folk''s successful > deployment choices. > > Across all of our sites we''re pumping out about 300k pages per day so > anything that saves memory or has performance benefits is a huge > win for us. > > Cheers, > Hunter > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/railsThis is definitely one of the best ways to go right now for fast dependable rails server setups. Here''s an apache2.2 vhost template for use with mod_proxy_balancer and mongrel_cluster. This config file also demonstrates how to serve all static and page cached assets with apache and all dynamic requests with a cluster of mongrels. http://brainspl.at/articles/2006/06/12/apache2-2-vhost-template-for- mongrel-clusters Cheers- -Ezra
Thanks for this article, Ezra! On a related topic, I see at the Mongrel site that the docs now warn people off using Lighttpd to balance. (http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/docs/lighttpd.html). How bad are the problems with using Lighttpd & mod_proxy to front a Mongrel cluster? Anybody out there have a working production site with that combo? Anybody have a *broken* production site that you are about to move off from lightspeed? phil Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezmobius@gmail.com> wrote: This is definitely one of the best ways to go right now for fast dependable rails server setups. Here''s an apache2.2 vhost template for use with mod_proxy_balancer and mongrel_cluster. This config file also demonstrates how to serve all static and page cached assets with apache and all dynamic requests with a cluster of mongrels. http://brainspl.at/articles/2006/06/12/apache2-2-vhost-template-for- mongrel-clusters Cheers- -Ezra ------ Phillip Kast (909)630-9562 phil@unimedia.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060612/9a66bca7/attachment.html
>> Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezmobius@gmail.com> wrote: >> This is definitely one of the best ways to go right now for fast >> dependable rails server setups. Here''s an apache2.2 vhost template >> for use with mod_proxy_balancer and mongrel_cluster. This config file >> also demonstrates how to serve all static and page cached assets with >> apache and all dynamic requests with a cluster of mongrels. >> >> http://brainspl.at/articles/2006/06/12/apache2-2-vhost-template-for- >> mongrel-clusters>On 6/12/06, Phillip Kast <phil@unimedia.org> wrote: > Thanks for this article, Ezra! > > On a related topic, I see at the Mongrel site that the docs now warn people > off using Lighttpd to balance. > (http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/docs/lighttpd.html). > > How bad are the problems with using Lighttpd & mod_proxy to front a Mongrel > cluster? Anybody out there have a working production site with that combo? > Anybody have a *broken* production site that you are about to move off from > lightspeed?The big one is that when Lighty decides that one of the back-ends is down, it won''t recognize that it is back online until you restart Lighty. That''s a pretty nasty bug for a cluster front-end to have. Personally, I just use Pound in front of Mongrel, without Apache or Lighty. I don''t serve up large static resources, though, so I''m not necessarily recommending that for everyone. It is very simple and fast, though.
Wilson Bilkovich wrote:> The big one is that when Lighty decides that one of the back-ends is > down, it won''t recognize that it is back online until you restart > Lighty. That''s a pretty nasty bug for a cluster front-end to have.Yeah that sounds pretty well like a deal-breaker. Although lightty restarts are pretty quick when it just has to restart itself...> Personally, I just use Pound in front of Mongrel, without Apache or > Lighty. I don''t serve up large static resources, though, so I''m not > necessarily recommending that for everyone. > It is very simple and fast, though.Cool. I''ll check out pound before I start playing with apache configs. Thanks, phil
Is Mongrel a good replacement for Webrick for development or should we stick with Webrick during the development phase? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What''s an Intel chip doing in a Mac? A whole lor more that it''s ever done in a PC. My Digital Life - http://scottwalter.com/blog Pro:Blog - http://scottwalter.com/problog Snippets - http://snippets.scottwalter.com ----- Original Message ---- From: Phillip Kast <phil@unimedia.org> To: rails@lists.rubyonrails.org Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:03:42 PM Subject: Re: [Rails] Mongrel Now Recommended Setup? Wilson Bilkovich wrote:> The big one is that when Lighty decides that one of the back-ends is > down, it won''t recognize that it is back online until you restart > Lighty. That''s a pretty nasty bug for a cluster front-end to have.Yeah that sounds pretty well like a deal-breaker. Although lightty restarts are pretty quick when it just has to restart itself...> Personally, I just use Pound in front of Mongrel, without Apache or > Lighty. I don''t serve up large static resources, though, so I''m not > necessarily recommending that for everyone. > It is very simple and fast, though.Cool. I''ll check out pound before I start playing with apache configs. Thanks, phil _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060612/80d532c8/attachment.html
Scott Walter wrote:> Is Mongrel a good replacement for Webrick for development or should we > stick with Webrick during the development phase?They both work fine for most dev purposes. Mongrel is faster. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060612/fa92d069/attachment.html
Phillip Kast wrote:> Thanks for this article, Ezra! > > On a related topic, I see at the Mongrel site that the docs now warn > people off using Lighttpd to balance. > (http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/docs/lighttpd.html). > > How bad are the problems with using Lighttpd & mod_proxy to front a > Mongrel cluster? Anybody out there have a working production site with > that combo? Anybody have a *broken* production site that you are about > to move off from lightspeed?Yep, I have many sites using Lighttpd, mod_proxy, and Mongrel. Haven''t had any problems since Zed released a big bug fix a while ago (about 2-3 releases ago I think). I hear pound offers much better proxying. Joe -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 21:29 +0200, Joe wrote:> Phillip Kast wrote: > > Thanks for this article, Ezra! > > > > On a related topic, I see at the Mongrel site that the docs now warn > > people off using Lighttpd to balance. > > (http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/docs/lighttpd.html). > > > > How bad are the problems with using Lighttpd & mod_proxy to front a > > Mongrel cluster? Anybody out there have a working production site with > > that combo? Anybody have a *broken* production site that you are about > > to move off from lightspeed? > > Yep, I have many sites using Lighttpd, mod_proxy, and Mongrel. Haven''t > had any problems since Zed released a big bug fix a while ago (about 2-3 > releases ago I think). I hear pound offers much better proxying.Joe, when you get a chance, try zapping one of the mongrel backends and then thrash the site for a bit. Watch the chaos ensue. Lighttpd basically needs to take the same approach to mod_proxy that it does with mod_fastcgi and mod_scgi. -- Zed A. Shaw http://www.zedshaw.com/ http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/
Zed Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> wrote: Joe, when you get a chance, try zapping one of the mongrel backends and then thrash the site for a bit. Watch the chaos ensue. Lighttpd basically needs to take the same approach to mod_proxy that it does with mod_fastcgi and mod_scgi. So is the problem in mod_proxy or deeper in lighttpd? Have the mod_proxy developers totally given up, are they working on this, and are they soliciting contributions? In other words, what''s the prognosis, Doc? Is the patient dying or merely ill? :) phil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060612/eb7731f0/attachment.html
On Jun 12, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Phillip Kast wrote:> > > Zed Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> wrote: > Joe, when you get a chance, try zapping one of the mongrel backends > and > then thrash the site for a bit. Watch the chaos ensue. Lighttpd > basically needs to take the same approach to mod_proxy that it does > with > mod_fastcgi and mod_scgi. > > So is the problem in mod_proxy or deeper in lighttpd? Have the > mod_proxy developers totally given up, are they working on this, > and are they soliciting contributions? > > In other words, what''s the prognosis, Doc? Is the patient dying or > merely ill? :) > > phil > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/railsThe author of lighty told me that it would be fixed in 1.4.12. But I have no idea when that will be coming out. -Ezra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060612/46f24084/attachment.html
Zed Shaw wrote:> On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 21:29 +0200, Joe wrote: >> > to move off from lightspeed? >> >> Yep, I have many sites using Lighttpd, mod_proxy, and Mongrel. Haven''t >> had any problems since Zed released a big bug fix a while ago (about 2-3 >> releases ago I think). I hear pound offers much better proxying. > > Joe, when you get a chance, try zapping one of the mongrel backends and > then thrash the site for a bit. Watch the chaos ensue. Lighttpd > basically needs to take the same approach to mod_proxy that it does with > mod_fastcgi and mod_scgi.Heh, yeah, tried that. IIRC, I just couldn''t access the Rails app via web interface. Also, sometimes mongrel_rails cluster::[stop|restart]|stop|restart doesn''t kill all the processes (requiring a kill -9). Happens pretty rarely - usually one mongrel/ruby process is using tons of memory and won''t stop|restart - think it might coincide with one of the search engine spiders hammering a site hard. Joe -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 15:28 -0700, Phillip Kast wrote:> > > Zed Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> wrote: > Joe, when you get a chance, try zapping one of the mongrel > backends and > then thrash the site for a bit. Watch the chaos ensue. > Lighttpd > basically needs to take the same approach to mod_proxy that it > does with > mod_fastcgi and mod_scgi. > > So is the problem in mod_proxy or deeper in lighttpd? Have the > mod_proxy developers totally given up, are they working on this, and > are they soliciting contributions? > > In other words, what''s the prognosis, Doc? Is the patient dying or > merely ill? :)No idea, I don''t have time to fix other people''s stuff so I leave it to the community to come up with what works best for them and then I just record it. Once everyone realized that mod_proxy didn''t work so well they started looking at apache again and litespeed and started putting out some better configurations.>From a Mongrel perspective I could give a rat''s ass. :-) The wholepoint is that Mongrel is HTTP so whatever you want you can use without much fuss. -- Zed A. Shaw http://www.zedshaw.com/ http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/
In regards to using mongrel vs webrick, I did notice that webricks restrictions on certain words can often make mongrel the choice for development. For example, the use of the word "Logs" seems to be disfavoured by webrick for tablenames and models, etc. On 6/12/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> wrote:> > On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 15:28 -0700, Phillip Kast wrote: > > > > > > Zed Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> wrote: > > Joe, when you get a chance, try zapping one of the mongrel > > backends and > > then thrash the site for a bit. Watch the chaos ensue. > > Lighttpd > > basically needs to take the same approach to mod_proxy that it > > does with > > mod_fastcgi and mod_scgi. > > > > So is the problem in mod_proxy or deeper in lighttpd? Have the > > mod_proxy developers totally given up, are they working on this, and > > are they soliciting contributions? > > > > In other words, what''s the prognosis, Doc? Is the patient dying or > > merely ill? :) > > No idea, I don''t have time to fix other people''s stuff so I leave it to > the community to come up with what works best for them and then I just > record it. Once everyone realized that mod_proxy didn''t work so well > they started looking at apache again and litespeed and started putting > out some better configurations. > > >From a Mongrel perspective I could give a rat''s ass. :-) The whole > point is that Mongrel is HTTP so whatever you want you can use without > much fuss. > > > -- > Zed A. Shaw > http://www.zedshaw.com/ > http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060613/19c826a3/attachment.html
This is a little OT, but I''m wondering if anyone has any suggestions for an Apache2.2 install on Debian Sarge. I''ve been unable to find any pre-built packages for it, and I''m a little concerned about rolling my own because of possible security hazards. I''m currently using pound, Apache2, and Mongrel, but I''m ending up doing my vhosting setup in Pound, which the author of Pound strongly discourages. I''d like to just do it right and get the whole thing running behind Apache2.2 with mod_proxy_balancer. Any thoughts are much appreciated! Thanks, Matt On 6/13/06, Benjamin Gorlick <uncledrails@gmail.com> wrote:> In regards to using mongrel vs webrick, I did notice that webricks > restrictions on certain words can often make mongrel the choice for > development. For example, the use of the word "Logs" seems to be disfavoured > by webrick for tablenames and models, etc. > > > On 6/12/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 15:28 -0700, Phillip Kast wrote: > > > > > > > > > Zed Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> wrote: > > > Joe, when you get a chance, try zapping one of the mongrel > > > backends and > > > then thrash the site for a bit. Watch the chaos ensue. > > > Lighttpd > > > basically needs to take the same approach to mod_proxy that it > > > does with > > > mod_fastcgi and mod_scgi. > > > > > > So is the problem in mod_proxy or deeper in lighttpd? Have the > > > mod_proxy developers totally given up, are they working on this, and > > > are they soliciting contributions? > > > > > > In other words, what''s the prognosis, Doc? Is the patient dying or > > > merely ill? :) > > > > No idea, I don''t have time to fix other people''s stuff so I leave it to > > the community to come up with what works best for them and then I just > > record it. Once everyone realized that mod_proxy didn''t work so well > > they started looking at apache again and litespeed and started putting > > out some better configurations. > > > > >From a Mongrel perspective I could give a rat''s ass. :-) The whole > > point is that Mongrel is HTTP so whatever you want you can use without > > much fuss. > > > > > > -- > > Zed A. Shaw > > http://www.zedshaw.com/ > > http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails mailing list > > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >