Mongrel users - Apr 2006 - Is mongrel stable enough to be used in a production environment?

Is mongrel stable enough to be used in a production environment?   Is it
stable?
If so, which version is recommended?
Thanks,

Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/attachments/20060407/8d3ad7b4/attachment.htm

I?m currently taking the 0.3.12.x release and making it stable and robust in
the face of malformed protocol requests or giant ?moby? requests.  There is
a pre-release available (0.3.12.4) from:

  gem install mongrel ?source=http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/releases/

Which you might want to try in order to get a jump on it?s stability.  This
release mostly just fixes the Date formatting to be RFC compliant.

I?m telling people that the 0.3.13 release will be the ?stable for
pre-production release?.  This means that you can start putting your
pre-production and staging systems on it for testing and evaluation
purposes.  At Canada on Rails I plan on getting together with as many people
as possible and trying to get their applications to run Mongrel as my main
testing process.

After Canada on Rails I?m planning the 0.4 release and will start telling
people it?s production ready.

Now, before people go crazy and start running their rails applications on
Mongrel expecting google size loads, there?s quite a few things that
?Mongrel in production? is really missing:

  * A monitoring best practice.  I?m looking at monit for this and should
have a doc for people soon.
  * A multi-machine cached cluster best practice.  There?s one using
lighttpd that works, but there?s some bugs in lighttpd?s mod_proxy that
makes it not so great.  I should have a new version of the document which
clears all this up.
  * Management mechanisms.  Monit should take care of things like stray
mongrels (pun!) and bouncing badly behaving servers.  It would be nice to
give people a small handler that lets them hit a mongrel server on a
separate host to see what it?s doing and manage it a bit.

Hope that answers your question.

Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/


On 4/7/06 3:50 PM, "Chris Richards" <evilgeenius at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Is mongrel stable enough to be used in a production environment?   Is it
> stable?
> If so, which version is recommended?
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/attachments/20060408/1bc375cd/attachment.htm

I *really* don''t mean to be a jerk, but why not call the
"production"release 1.0? I''m sure you have your reasons, I
guess, but I think ifit''s public and production-worthy, it should be at
least 1.0. Just athought - getting set in my ways as I get old probably. ;)
Cheers,
Kevin
On 4/8/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw at zedshaw.com> wrote:>  I''m
currently taking the 0.3.12.x release and making it stable and robust> in the
face of malformed protocol requests or giant "moby" requests. 
There> is a pre-release available (0.3.12.4) from:>>    gem install
mongrel> ?source=http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/releases/>>  Which you
might want to try in order to get a jump on it''s stability.  This>
release mostly just fixes the Date formatting to be RFC compliant.>> 
I''m telling people that the 0.3.13 release will be the "stable
for> pre-production release".  This means that you can start putting
your> pre-production and staging systems on it for testing and evaluation>
purposes.  At Canada on Rails I plan on getting together with as many people>
as possible and trying to get their applications to run Mongrel as my main>
testing process.>>  After Canada on Rails I''m planning the 0.4
release and will start telling> people it''s production
ready.>>  Now, before people go crazy and start running their rails
applications on> Mongrel expecting google size loads, there''s quite
a few things that> "Mongrel in production" is really
missing:>>    * A monitoring best practice.  I''m looking at monit
for this and should> have a doc for people soon.>    * A multi-machine
cached cluster best practice.  There''s one using> lighttpd that
works, but there''s some bugs in lighttpd''s mod_proxy that>
makes it not so great.  I should have a new version of the document which>
clears all this up.>    * Management mechanisms.  Monit should take care of
things like stray> mongrels (pun!) and bouncing badly behaving servers.  It
would be nice to> give people a small handler that lets them hit a mongrel
server on a> separate host to see what it''s doing and manage it a
bit.>>  Hope that answers your question.>>  Zed A. Shaw> 
http://www.zedshaw.com/>  http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/>>>>  On
4/7/06 3:50 PM, "Chris Richards" <evilgeenius at gmail.com>
wrote:>>>> Is mongrel stable enough to be used in a production
environment?   Is it> stable?>  If so, which version is recommended?> 
Thanks,>>  Chris>>  ________________________________>
_______________________________________________>  Mongrel-users mailing
list>  Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org> 
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users>>>
_______________________________________________> Mongrel-users mailing
list> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users>>

--Cheers,
Kevin
"Picking fights with people smarter than youis great - you always end up
learning something."- jcooney.net

On 4/8/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw at zedshaw.com>
wrote:
> At Canada on Rails I plan on getting together with as many people> as
possible and trying to get their applications to run Mongrel as my main>
testing process.>>  After Canada on Rails I''m planning the 0.4
release and will start telling> people it''s production ready.
This is the kind of attitude, passion and professionalism I love somuch in Rails
community; a big "THANK YOU" guys!
Cheers,Metin
--Pace Peace Paix Paz Frieden Pax Pok?j Fri?ur Fred B?keHasiti Lap? Hetep Malu
M?? Wolakota Santiphap Irini PeochShanti Vrede Bar?? R?j M?r Taika Rongo S?lh
Py''guapy

On 4/8/06 10:17 PM, "Kevin Williams" <kevwil at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I *really* don''t mean to be a jerk, but why not call the
"production"release
> 1.0? I''m sure you have your reasons, I guess, but I think
ifit''s public and
> production-worthy, it should be at least 1.0. Just athought - getting set
in
> my ways as I get old probably. ;)
Oh see my plan is to release Mongrel the way Sun Releases Java revisions.
The official release working title is:

  Mongrel 0.4 Enterprise Edition 1.2

I figure if they can get away with three names for the same thing then I can
too.

Zed

I LIKE IT! :)
On 4/9/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw at zedshaw.com> wrote:>>>> On
4/8/06 10:17 PM, "Kevin Williams" <kevwil at gmail.com>
wrote:>> > I *really* don''t mean to be a jerk, but why not
call the "production"release> > 1.0? I''m sure you have
your reasons, I guess, but I think ifit''s public and> >
production-worthy, it should be at least 1.0. Just athought - getting set in>
> my ways as I get old probably. ;)>> Oh see my plan is to release
Mongrel the way Sun Releases Java revisions.> The official release working
title is:>>   Mongrel 0.4 Enterprise Edition 1.2>> I figure if they
can get away with three names for the same thing then I can> too.>>
Zed>>> _______________________________________________>
Mongrel-users mailing list> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users>

--Cheers,
Kevin
"Picking fights with people smarter than youis great - you always end up
learning something."- jcooney.net