At 09:02 AM 1/29/2008, mongrel-users-request at rubyforge.org
wrote:> >
> > You can absolutely keep running things that way. I''ve ran
the same
> > sort of sites for years, and the vast majority of them have been
> done
> > is exactly that way. It works just fine, and IMHO, more people
> should
> > be deploying Rails apps in that sort of simple manner.
>
>This is an interesting discussion. The conclusions are a bit confusing
>to me. John-- you say that your sites get a few thousand hits a day.
>With only one mongrel, can''t the system only serve one request at a
>time? It seems like, independent of system performance, just the fact
>that the requests have to be done sequentially would have a big hit on
>the performance on the site.
>
>Is this not the case, that with one mongrel, only one request can be
>served at a time?
>
>John
Hi John,
Rails can only run one request at a time. So if you''re running a stack
that includes Mongrel and Rails, then, yes, Mongrel will be reduced to
blocking and waiting for Rails to return before sending another request
through the pipe (effectively making Mongrel single threaded too). If
you had a truly multi-threaded app framework, then mongrel would
happily support multiple calls simultaneously into it.
From my understanding Mongrel is like Apache and Nginx, in that if you
increase load on it, it will increase performance up to the limits of
the hardware upon which it runs.
Rails on the other hand has other limitations. :)
Other people with more expertise may have better information but I
believe that''s basically the sitch.
Steve
