Raymond Brigleb
2006-Mar-30 16:21 UTC
[Rails] Survey: Favored Rails Production Environment
We''re trying to set up a colocated server for deploying a Rails application or three. Right now I''m undecided between a PC-based server running FreeBSD and an Xserve running OS X. I''ve never colocated before so I''m wondering if anyone has stories, tips, or could say what their preferred OS is for running Rails. I''m also wondering how performance of Ruby is with single/dual processors. Is it worth getting a DP Xeon or G5? Is the processor going to be the bottleneck or the bandwidth? TIA for any feedback!
On 30 Mar 2006, at 18:19, Raymond Brigleb wrote:> We''re trying to set up a colocated server for deploying a Rails > application or three. Right now I''m undecided between a PC-based > server running FreeBSD and an Xserve running OS X. I''ve never > colocated before so I''m wondering if anyone has stories, tips, or > could say what their preferred OS is for running Rails. > > I''m also wondering how performance of Ruby is with single/dual > processors. Is it worth getting a DP Xeon or G5? Is the processor > going to be the bottleneck or the bandwidth?OS X Server has never been the fastest server, and I personally don''t think it has anything to do with single or dual processor, but with the nature of OS X itself. If you want to squeeze as much performance as possible out of your server, I can garantee you a Linux server is going to be better. On the other hand, OS X is easier to manage using Apple Remote Desktop. Website performance is always going to be the combination between available bandwidth and the amount of requests your server can handle, but most of the times, your server is going to be the culprit when your website doesn''t perform. As much as I love the Mac for my development and think OS X Server is a good solution for basic serving (fileserving, dataserving, webserving), I''d never use it in a production environment. When you colocate a PC-based server, just make sure it''s good quality, replacing parts can be quite expensive if you''re colocation your own server. HTH! Best regards Peter De Berdt
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 18:55 +0200, Peter De Berdt wrote:> On 30 Mar 2006, at 18:19, Raymond Brigleb wrote: > > > We''re trying to set up a colocated server for deploying a Rails > > application or three. Right now I''m undecided between a PC-based > > server running FreeBSD and an Xserve running OS X. I''ve never > > colocated before so I''m wondering if anyone has stories, tips, or > > could say what their preferred OS is for running Rails. > > > > I''m also wondering how performance of Ruby is with single/dual > > processors. Is it worth getting a DP Xeon or G5? Is the processor > > going to be the bottleneck or the bandwidth? > > OS X Server has never been the fastest server, and I personally don''t > think it has anything to do with single or dual processor, but with > the nature of OS X itself. If you want to squeeze as much performance > as possible out of your server, I can garantee you a Linux server is > going to be better. On the other hand, OS X is easier to manage using > Apple Remote Desktop.---- freenx on Linux - ends that discussion ----> > Website performance is always going to be the combination between > available bandwidth and the amount of requests your server can > handle, but most of the times, your server is going to be the culprit > when your website doesn''t perform. > As much as I love the Mac for my development and think OS X Server is > a good solution for basic serving (fileserving, dataserving, > webserving), I''d never use it in a production environment. When you > colocate a PC-based server, just make sure it''s good quality, > replacing parts can be quite expensive if you''re colocation your own > server.---- I have read many articles on lack of threading that hampers db performance on OS X Craig
On Mar 30, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Craig White wrote:> On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 18:55 +0200, Peter De Berdt wrote: >> On 30 Mar 2006, at 18:19, Raymond Brigleb wrote: >> >>> We''re trying to set up a colocated server for deploying a Rails >>> application or three. Right now I''m undecided between a PC-based >>> server running FreeBSD and an Xserve running OS X. I''ve never >>> colocated before so I''m wondering if anyone has stories, tips, or >>> could say what their preferred OS is for running Rails. >>> >>> I''m also wondering how performance of Ruby is with single/dual >>> processors. Is it worth getting a DP Xeon or G5? Is the processor >>> going to be the bottleneck or the bandwidth? >> >> OS X Server has never been the fastest server, and I personally don''t >> think it has anything to do with single or dual processor, but with >> the nature of OS X itself. If you want to squeeze as much performance >> as possible out of your server, I can garantee you a Linux server is >> going to be better. On the other hand, OS X is easier to manage using >> Apple Remote Desktop. > ---- > freenx on Linux - ends that discussion > ---- >> >> Website performance is always going to be the combination between >> available bandwidth and the amount of requests your server can >> handle, but most of the times, your server is going to be the culprit >> when your website doesn''t perform. >> As much as I love the Mac for my development and think OS X Server is >> a good solution for basic serving (fileserving, dataserving, >> webserving), I''d never use it in a production environment. When you >> colocate a PC-based server, just make sure it''s good quality, >> replacing parts can be quite expensive if you''re colocation your own >> server. > ---- > I have read many articles on lack of threading that hampers db > performance on OS XFunny that everyone is focusing on performance, as though that''s the only (or at least most important) aspect of this decision. Why did Ezra choose OS X? I don''t know, but I''d bet it *might* have something to do with the fact that it''s never been remotely rooted. Not saying it cannot, just that it has not. The slowest Macintosh today is considerably faster than the fastest PCs available when Amazon and Google were conceived and created... -- -- Tom Mornini
Who offers OS X hosting? For those that colo, an OS X server''s cost is probably in the neighborhood of a Xeon, but not Athlons, etc. Performance and cost are very important to me. The fear of my getting remotely rooted on Linux is really small. It can happen, but I hope my keeping software up-to-date, using more secure passwords, and keeping backups, can save me if it ever does (and it hasn''t in my about ten years of having machines online, and my servers get lots of weird "traffic"). Joe -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Umm.... Google may have had low-rent white boxes but they had hundreds of them in a farm and they were running their own custom linux kernel. Without knowing pretty much any of your constraints (dollars, what the applications are/do, is there going to be a database running on this box, etc.) I''d stick with the tried-and-true: UNIX/Linux/*BSD + Apache runs about 3/4s of the Web (see Netcraft data for actual numbers) and there is tons of information and support for this combination. On 3/30/06, Tom Mornini <tmornini@infomania.com> wrote:> On Mar 30, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Craig White wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 18:55 +0200, Peter De Berdt wrote: > >> On 30 Mar 2006, at 18:19, Raymond Brigleb wrote: > >> > >>> We''re trying to set up a colocated server for deploying a Rails > >>> application or three. Right now I''m undecided between a PC-based > >>> server running FreeBSD and an Xserve running OS X. I''ve never > >>> colocated before so I''m wondering if anyone has stories, tips, or > >>> could say what their preferred OS is for running Rails. > >>> > >>> I''m also wondering how performance of Ruby is with single/dual > >>> processors. Is it worth getting a DP Xeon or G5? Is the processor > >>> going to be the bottleneck or the bandwidth? > >> > >> OS X Server has never been the fastest server, and I personally don''t > >> think it has anything to do with single or dual processor, but with > >> the nature of OS X itself. If you want to squeeze as much performance > >> as possible out of your server, I can garantee you a Linux server is > >> going to be better. On the other hand, OS X is easier to manage using > >> Apple Remote Desktop. > > ---- > > freenx on Linux - ends that discussion > > ---- > >> > >> Website performance is always going to be the combination between > >> available bandwidth and the amount of requests your server can > >> handle, but most of the times, your server is going to be the culprit > >> when your website doesn''t perform. > >> As much as I love the Mac for my development and think OS X Server is > >> a good solution for basic serving (fileserving, dataserving, > >> webserving), I''d never use it in a production environment. When you > >> colocate a PC-based server, just make sure it''s good quality, > >> replacing parts can be quite expensive if you''re colocation your own > >> server. > > ---- > > I have read many articles on lack of threading that hampers db > > performance on OS X > > Funny that everyone is focusing on performance, as though that''s the > only (or at least most important) aspect of this decision. > > Why did Ezra choose OS X? I don''t know, but I''d bet it *might* have > something to do with the fact that it''s never been remotely rooted. > > Not saying it cannot, just that it has not. > > The slowest Macintosh today is considerably faster than the fastest > PCs available when Amazon and Google were conceived and created... > > -- > -- Tom Mornini > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
It''s not a matter of low rent white boxes, or having hundreds of them. http://tinyurl.com/4chye 1996. 40GB storage. We have a fantastic surplus of computing power these days. Ezra has discussed the Yakima Times Herald''s website. A dual processor XServe serves all app requests (not DB) and is around 15% busy. http://tinyurl.com/rz5jf So, YES, no question, Macs are NOT the most cost effective solution in terms of $/hit. But that simply doesn''t disqualify them for many people, as there are many other factors in making a server decision. -- -- Tom Mornini On Mar 30, 2006, at 7:50 PM, GravyFace wrote:> Umm.... Google may have had low-rent white boxes but they had > hundreds of them in a farm and they were running their own custom > linux kernel. > > Without knowing pretty much any of your constraints (dollars, what the > applications are/do, is there going to be a database running on this > box, etc.) I''d stick with the tried-and-true: UNIX/Linux/*BSD + Apache > runs about 3/4s of the Web (see Netcraft data for actual numbers) and > there is tons of information and support for this combination. > > On 3/30/06, Tom Mornini <tmornini@infomania.com> wrote: >> On Mar 30, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Craig White wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 18:55 +0200, Peter De Berdt wrote: >>>> On 30 Mar 2006, at 18:19, Raymond Brigleb wrote: >>>> >>>>> We''re trying to set up a colocated server for deploying a Rails >>>>> application or three. Right now I''m undecided between a PC-based >>>>> server running FreeBSD and an Xserve running OS X. I''ve never >>>>> colocated before so I''m wondering if anyone has stories, tips, or >>>>> could say what their preferred OS is for running Rails. >>>>> >>>>> I''m also wondering how performance of Ruby is with single/dual >>>>> processors. Is it worth getting a DP Xeon or G5? Is the processor >>>>> going to be the bottleneck or the bandwidth? >>>> >>>> OS X Server has never been the fastest server, and I personally >>>> don''t >>>> think it has anything to do with single or dual processor, but with >>>> the nature of OS X itself. If you want to squeeze as much >>>> performance >>>> as possible out of your server, I can garantee you a Linux >>>> server is >>>> going to be better. On the other hand, OS X is easier to manage >>>> using >>>> Apple Remote Desktop. >>> ---- >>> freenx on Linux - ends that discussion >>> ---- >>>> >>>> Website performance is always going to be the combination between >>>> available bandwidth and the amount of requests your server can >>>> handle, but most of the times, your server is going to be the >>>> culprit >>>> when your website doesn''t perform. >>>> As much as I love the Mac for my development and think OS X >>>> Server is >>>> a good solution for basic serving (fileserving, dataserving, >>>> webserving), I''d never use it in a production environment. When you >>>> colocate a PC-based server, just make sure it''s good quality, >>>> replacing parts can be quite expensive if you''re colocation your >>>> own >>>> server. >>> ---- >>> I have read many articles on lack of threading that hampers db >>> performance on OS X >> >> Funny that everyone is focusing on performance, as though that''s the >> only (or at least most important) aspect of this decision. >> >> Why did Ezra choose OS X? I don''t know, but I''d bet it *might* have >> something to do with the fact that it''s never been remotely rooted. >> >> Not saying it cannot, just that it has not. >> >> The slowest Macintosh today is considerably faster than the fastest >> PCs available when Amazon and Google were conceived and created...
Tom Mornini
2006-Mar-31 06:04 UTC
[Rails] Re: Survey: Favored Rails Production Environment
On Mar 30, 2006, at 7:42 PM, Joe wrote:> Who offers OS X hosting? For those that colo, an OS X server''s cost is > probably in the neighborhood of a Xeon, but not Athlons, etc.http://www.xservhosting.com/ And many others... http://tinyurl.com/fx6o7> Performance and cost are very important to me. The fear of my getting > remotely rooted on Linux is really small. It can happen, but I hope my > keeping software up-to-date, using more secure passwords, and keeping > backups, can save me if it ever does (and it hasn''t in my about ten > years of having machines online, and my servers get lots of weird > "traffic").I don''t disagree with anything you say here. -- -- Tom Mornini
Tom Mornini wrote:> > cost effective solution in terms of $/hit.Heh, for some reason, I can see that metric term catching on. Joe -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Adam Lindsay
2006-Mar-31 06:42 UTC
[Rails] Re: Survey: Favored Rails Production Environment
I currently maintain an xserve with 8 virtually host rails apps, some blogs(typo) some custom. I used Darwin Ports to install everything, except MySQL which I just got straight. Here is the thing with OSX Server. It''s good for everything not custom. The server tools are clean and nice. Everything works well, until, you want to do something not in the norm. It can be done, but then you end up in Terminal.app more than Server Admin.app. No big deal, just know this. We are 100% Apple (desktop & server) that has benefits too. Performance, Cost, blah, Hardware will be slightly higher with Apple. Support has been wonderful. Especially when I totally f''d up email going to 10.4. :) Performance, oh come on, who doesn''t want an entire rack of XServers. Plus with XSan, oh the hotness. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Tom Mornini
2006-Mar-31 06:55 UTC
[Rails] Re: Survey: Favored Rails Production Environment
That is funny. When I wrote it, I didn''t notice, but now... :-) -- -- Tom Mornini On Mar 30, 2006, at 10:18 PM, Joe wrote:> Tom Mornini wrote: >> >> cost effective solution in terms of $/hit. > > Heh, for some reason, I can see that metric term catching on. > > Joe > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>> OS X Server has never been the fastest server, and I personally don''t >> think it has anything to do with single or dual processor, but with >> the nature of OS X itself. If you want to squeeze as much performance >> as possible out of your server, I can garantee you a Linux server is >> going to be better. On the other hand, OS X is easier to manage using >> Apple Remote Desktop. > ---- > freenx on Linux - ends that discussion > ----Sure, and it outperfoms both Apple Remote Desktop and Terminal Services, but... X11 on your Mac at home (which you''ll probably use to manage the server) is a memory hog :-) But FreeNX rulez, no doubt about that...>> >> Website performance is always going to be the combination between >> available bandwidth and the amount of requests your server can >> handle, but most of the times, your server is going to be the culprit >> when your website doesn''t perform. >> As much as I love the Mac for my development and think OS X Server is >> a good solution for basic serving (fileserving, dataserving, >> webserving), I''d never use it in a production environment. When you >> colocate a PC-based server, just make sure it''s good quality, >> replacing parts can be quite expensive if you''re colocation your own >> server. > ---- > I have read many articles on lack of threading that hampers db > performance on OS XYep, that''s what I thought too, but I didn''t dare say it out loud... Best regards Peter De Berdt
Raymond Brigleb
2006-Mar-31 15:11 UTC
[Rails] Survey: Favored Rails Production Environment
Thanks everyone for the info. I''m leaning toward a Xeon running FreeBSD, which seems like it might be the overall favored deployment setup for Rails, so far. But I should give just a bit of background. I don''t expect a ton of traffic, perhaps 500 users a day for what is basically a non-public CMS with emphasis on image handling and FTP stuff. The main problem I''m having on our shared host is running out of memory with ImageMagick routines, and while I plan on rewriting the app to use MiniMagick, I''m sure lots of memory would help. I also expect that a Xeon would be ideal, but on some of the TextDrive forums, I hear that 64-bit processors tend to use several times the memory that 32-bit processors do on ImageMagick type routines. Is this true?? Or is it possible ImageMagick is just sloppy or has been misconfigured, or in need of more frequent garbage collection? Finally, I *am* planning on running MySQL on the same server. Is this a complete crime? From what I gather here and in the list archives, one really wants to have it on a separate server, but the database won''t likely be taxed nearly as much as the processor or network, I''m thinking. I''ll only have 20 or 30 tables and plan to optimize a bit once I see some real-world usage. Is this realistic?
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 07:09 -0800, Raymond Brigleb wrote:> Thanks everyone for the info. I''m leaning toward a Xeon running > FreeBSD, which seems like it might be the overall favored deployment > setup for Rails, so far. But I should give just a bit of background. > > I don''t expect a ton of traffic, perhaps 500 users a day for what is > basically a non-public CMS with emphasis on image handling and FTP > stuff. The main problem I''m having on our shared host is running out > of memory with ImageMagick routines, and while I plan on rewriting the > app to use MiniMagick, I''m sure lots of memory would help. I also > expect that a Xeon would be ideal, but on some of the TextDrive > forums, I hear that 64-bit processors tend to use several times the > memory that 32-bit processors do on ImageMagick type routines. Is this > true?? Or is it possible ImageMagick is just sloppy or has been > misconfigured, or in need of more frequent garbage collection? > > Finally, I *am* planning on running MySQL on the same server. Is this > a complete crime? From what I gather here and in the list archives, > one really wants to have it on a separate server, but the database > won''t likely be taxed nearly as much as the processor or network, I''m > thinking. I''ll only have 20 or 30 tables and plan to optimize a bit > once I see some real-world usage. Is this realistic?---- I would think so but you always have the option of moving the database to another system if it becomes a bottleneck and that should be rather simple. Craig
Raymond Brigleb wrote:> Thanks everyone for the info. I''m leaning toward a Xeon running > FreeBSD, which seems like it might be the overall favored deployment > setup for Rails, so far. But I should give just a bit of background. > > I don''t expect a ton of traffic, perhaps 500 users a day for what is > basically a non-public CMS with emphasis on image handling and FTP > stuff. The main problem I''m having on our shared host is running out > of memory with ImageMagick routines, and while I plan on rewriting the > app to use MiniMagick, I''m sure lots of memory would help. I also > expect that a Xeon would be ideal, but on some of the TextDrive > forums, I hear that 64-bit processors tend to use several times the > memory that 32-bit processors do on ImageMagick type routines. Is this > true?? Or is it possible ImageMagick is just sloppy or has been > misconfigured, or in need of more frequent garbage collection? > > Finally, I *am* planning on running MySQL on the same server. Is this > a complete crime? From what I gather here and in the list archives, > one really wants to have it on a separate server, but the database > won''t likely be taxed nearly as much as the processor or network, I''m > thinking. I''ll only have 20 or 30 tables and plan to optimize a bit > once I see some real-world usage. Is this realistic?I have a lot more traffic than 500 users a day, and an Athlon box (w/ 1 GB RAM) handles it fine. The database server (PostgreSQL) is also on the same machine. Imagemagick operations can hit the CPU hard though. Joe -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On 31 Mar 2006, at 17:09, Raymond Brigleb wrote:> Thanks everyone for the info. I''m leaning toward a Xeon running > FreeBSD, which seems like it might be the overall favored deployment > setup for Rails, so far. But I should give just a bit of background. > > I don''t expect a ton of traffic, perhaps 500 users a day for what is > basically a non-public CMS with emphasis on image handling and FTP > stuff. The main problem I''m having on our shared host is running out > of memory with ImageMagick routines, and while I plan on rewriting the > app to use MiniMagick, I''m sure lots of memory would help. I also > expect that a Xeon would be ideal, but on some of the TextDrive > forums, I hear that 64-bit processors tend to use several times the > memory that 32-bit processors do on ImageMagick type routines. Is this > true?? Or is it possible ImageMagick is just sloppy or has been > misconfigured, or in need of more frequent garbage collection? > > Finally, I *am* planning on running MySQL on the same server. Is this > a complete crime? From what I gather here and in the list archives, > one really wants to have it on a separate server, but the database > won''t likely be taxed nearly as much as the processor or network, I''m > thinking. I''ll only have 20 or 30 tables and plan to optimize a bit > once I see some real-world usage. Is this realistic?I''d say: deploy first, scale later. Scaling is pretty easy and doesn''t take a lot of time, buying an extra server does cost a lot, hate it to be a waste of money. Your FTP stuff won''t put a big strain on the server itself, ImageMagick probably will, but you could optimize your application to cache as much as possible (if possible of course). 500 users isn''t really heavy use either. Best regards Peter De Berdt