As some of you know, I''ve got a One-Click Ruby Server in the works Windows (other platforms to follow). The original idea was to install a working combination of apache, mysql, ruby, and rails, plus some sort of integrated admin facility (written as a rails app). What would be the pros and cons of using lighttpd instead of apache? Thanks, Curt
Curt Hibbs schrieb:> As some of you know, I''ve got a One-Click Ruby Server in the works Windows > (other platforms to follow). The original idea was to install a working > combination of apache, mysql, ruby, and rails, plus some sort of integrated > admin facility (written as a rails app). > > What would be the pros and cons of using lighttpd instead of apache?As far as I know there is no working win32 version of lighttpd. You''d have to ask Jan Kneschke if he would do it. As far as I see it. I would be all for using lighttpd instead of Apache. Pro. Small download, fast and reliable. People usually only use 2% of Apache''s features. Contra. Very few ppl are familiar with lighttpd. I am looking forward to testing the package. Sascha
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:16:26 -0600, Curt Hibbs <curt-fk6st7iWb8MAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> As some of you know, I''ve got a One-Click Ruby Server in the works Windows > (other platforms to follow).TextDrive''s Jason Hoffman has an OS X package in the works <http://www.textdrive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=492> and he''s a fan of lighttpd. He''s probably using Apache though, since the goal is replicating TextDrive''s environment locally. I''d love to see simple OS X package with everything needed for Ruby-On-Rails; I''m apparently too clueless to get it working otherwise. -- Arthur Jennings http://www.timeistight.com
Sascha Ebach wrote:> > Curt Hibbs schrieb: > > As some of you know, I''ve got a One-Click Ruby Server in the > works Windows > > (other platforms to follow). The original idea was to install a working > > combination of apache, mysql, ruby, and rails, plus some sort > of integrated > > admin facility (written as a rails app). > > > > What would be the pros and cons of using lighttpd instead of apache? > > As far as I know there is no working win32 version of lighttpd. You''d > have to ask Jan Kneschke if he would do it.There''s a cygwin version of lighttpd available, but I wouldn''t want to use this. If I went with lighttpd, I would do a native windows port for the windows platform. Curt> As far as I see it. I would be all for using lighttpd instead of Apache. > > Pro. Small download, fast and reliable. People usually only use 2% of > Apache''s features. > > Contra. Very few ppl are familiar with lighttpd. > > I am looking forward to testing the package. > > Sascha > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2/7/2005 >
Curt Hibbs schrieb:> There''s a cygwin version of lighttpd available, but I wouldn''t want to use > this. If I went with lighttpd, I would do a native windows port for the > windows platform.If you can do that, that would be awesome. Sascha
I don''t think this is a good idea. While lighttpd will probably end up being used by some big rails installations people don''t know it. One of the first questions when people come to the rails channel is usually how to get it to work with apache and I think a major part of the success of rails is davids video which demonstrates the ease of apache integration. A lot of people have been burned by web frameworks which only work with own or platform native web server implementation ( think java - tomcat ). Apache in this case counts as wild card, as soon as people see rails apps running on apache they understand that it will probably run everywhere ( this will be true as of 0.9.6 when the mod_rewrite dependency is broken ). On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:16:26 -0600, Curt Hibbs <curt-fk6st7iWb8MAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> As some of you know, I''ve got a One-Click Ruby Server in the works Windows > (other platforms to follow). The original idea was to install a working > combination of apache, mysql, ruby, and rails, plus some sort of integrated > admin facility (written as a rails app). > > What would be the pros and cons of using lighttpd instead of apache? > > Thanks, > Curt > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- Tobi http://www.snowdevil.ca - Snowboards that don''t suck http://www.hieraki.org - Open source book authoring http://blog.leetsoft.com - Technical weblog
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:22:50 -0500, Tobias Luetke <tobias.luetke-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I don''t think this is a good idea.I agree with tobias here, lighttpd looks like a cool option for dedicated applications, but that''s not what really what people are building at first. You don''t go from "hmm, rails sounds cool" to "lets deploy to our dedicated server running lighttpd & fastcgi with memcached running for complicated queries". without building something small first. You build the small things on apache.> While lighttpd will probably end up being used by some big rails > installations people don''t know it. > One of the first questions when people come to the rails channel is > usually how to get it to work with apache and I think a major part of > the success of rails is davids video which demonstrates the ease of > apache integration. > A lot of people have been burned by web frameworks which only work > with own or platform native web server implementation ( think java - > tomcat ). > Apache in this case counts as wild card, as soon as people see rails > apps running on apache they understand that it will probably run > everywhere ( this will be true as of 0.9.6 when the mod_rewrite > dependency is broken ).Taking this a step further, a few simple changes to the rails command could make this much easier, stop me if they''ve already been implemented. 1) the correct path to the ruby interpreter in dispatch.* #! <%= @path_to_interpreter %> 2) A file called app_name.conf which contains the correct httpd.conf entries so I can just drop it into /etc/httpd/conf.d/ If this hasn''t been implemented, I''m happy to do it. But if someone''s keen and can whip it up in a few hours, go for it.> > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:16:26 -0600, Curt Hibbs <curt-fk6st7iWb8MAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > As some of you know, I''ve got a One-Click Ruby Server in the works Windows > > (other platforms to follow). The original idea was to install a working > > combination of apache, mysql, ruby, and rails, plus some sort of integrated > > admin facility (written as a rails app). > > > > What would be the pros and cons of using lighttpd instead of apache? > > > > Thanks, > > Curt > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails mailing list > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > > -- > Tobi > http://www.snowdevil.ca - Snowboards that don''t suck > http://www.hieraki.org - Open source book authoring > http://blog.leetsoft.com - Technical weblog > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- Cheers Koz
Michael Koziarski wrote:> > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:22:50 -0500, Tobias Luetke > <tobias.luetke-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > I don''t think this is a good idea. > > I agree with tobias here, lighttpd looks like a cool option for > dedicated applications, but that''s not what really what people are > building at first. > > You don''t go from "hmm, rails sounds cool" to "lets deploy to our > dedicated server running lighttpd & fastcgi with memcached running for > complicated queries". without building something small first. You > build the small things on apache.The excited little child in me wanted to do lighttpd, but the little voice in the back of my head was telling me exactly what you and Tobias have said. I guess I just needed a reality check. Curt PS Does any know if the issues surrounding apache2 have been sufficiently addressed, or would it be better to stick with apache1.3?
Curt Hibbs wrote:> Does any know if the issues surrounding apache2 have been sufficiently >addressed, or would it be better to stick with apache1.3? >I say Apache 2. I haven''t had any problems with it, and its Windows performance is supposed to be much better. This is just from my limited experience, however.
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:05:43 -0600, Curt Hibbs <curt-fk6st7iWb8MAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Does any know if the issues surrounding apache2 have been sufficiently > addressed, or would it be better to stick with apache1.3?I''ve been running on both Apache 1.3 and Apache 2 on FreeBSD without any issues. The servers are being load-balanced without any problems. -Erik
Curt Hibbs schrieb:> The excited little child in me wanted to do lighttpd, but the little voice > in the back of my head was telling me exactly what you and Tobias have said. > > I guess I just needed a reality check.You might want to rethink after reading this http://weblog.rubyonrails.com/archives/2005/02/08/the-rise-of-lighttpd-as-the-alternative-web-server/ The thing is: Apache is all nice and well, but hardly every necessary. Not if you look at what lighttpd has to offer. And not as a development platform either. Apache is just to big for that. I don''t agree with Tobias. I think Apache actually burdens such a distribution. If you could get lighttpd to *just work* out of the box on Windows, I don''t see any problems. I know that being used to something can be a powerful argument. But if you argue like that, why not simple stick to PHP/Perl/Python/Java whatever. Most ppl are used to that. Why in hell should I use Ruby and Rails? Maybe because they are small and feature rich? Another thing is that I already have an Apache envirmonment installed. That is the main reason I didn''t try the OCRS, yet. Really don''t want another Apache on my disk. The arguments that David brings in his posting are really convincing for me. 1) Strong FCGI support. 2) A very accessible lead developer. Jan is really great and very responsive with fixes and feature requests. 3) Lighttpd has mod_rewrite support. But it looks like this won''t even be necessary in the future. Like I said above. If you can make it so that it just works. And if it will be easy to create new hosts for development, lighttpd is an excellent choice. Much easier and efficient than Apache. What I am mostly interested in is having the same environment in production and development. To do that I use Cygwin/Colinux/Debian on a Windows development and RH7.3 on the production side. It would be great to have a native running Windows system though. At least as long as they produce Photoshop for Linux or I get a Mac ;) Sascha
Sascha Ebach wrote:> > Curt Hibbs schrieb: > > The excited little child in me wanted to do lighttpd, but the > little voice > > in the back of my head was telling me exactly what you and > Tobias have said. > > > > I guess I just needed a reality check. > > You might want to rethink after reading this > > http://weblog.rubyonrails.com/archives/2005/02/08/the-rise-of-ligh > ttpd-as-the-alternative-web-server/I''ll reply at this point instead of at the end... I agree with you and David, too! This is precisely what got me interested in Lighttpd in the first place. I''m torn between the staid, familiar workhorse (apache) and lean, speedy stallion (lighttpd). I personally lean toward lighttpd because Rails represents the new vanguard in web programming, and lighttpd seems to fit better with that vision. But I''d really like to get more support for this position before I commit myself. Curt> The thing is: Apache is all nice and well, but hardly every necessary. > Not if you look at what lighttpd has to offer. And not as a development > platform either. Apache is just to big for that. I don''t agree with > Tobias. I think Apache actually burdens such a distribution. If you > could get lighttpd to *just work* out of the box on Windows, I don''t see > any problems. > > I know that being used to something can be a powerful argument. But if > you argue like that, why not simple stick to PHP/Perl/Python/Java > whatever. Most ppl are used to that. Why in hell should I use Ruby and > Rails? Maybe because they are small and feature rich? > > Another thing is that I already have an Apache envirmonment installed. > That is the main reason I didn''t try the OCRS, yet. Really don''t want > another Apache on my disk. > > The arguments that David brings in his posting are really > convincing for me. > > 1) Strong FCGI support. > > 2) A very accessible lead developer. Jan is really great and very > responsive with fixes and feature requests. > > 3) Lighttpd has mod_rewrite support. But it looks like this won''t even > be necessary in the future. > > Like I said above. If you can make it so that it just works. And if it > will be easy to create new hosts for development, lighttpd is an > excellent choice. Much easier and efficient than Apache. > > What I am mostly interested in is having the same environment in > production and development. To do that I use Cygwin/Colinux/Debian on a > Windows development and RH7.3 on the production side. It would be great > to have a native running Windows system though. At least as long as they > produce Photoshop for Linux or I get a Mac ;) > > Sascha > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 1/25/2005 >
* Sascha Ebach <se-eFwX6J65rk9VioaHkBSlcw02NpfuEekPhC4ANOJQIlc@public.gmane.org> [0246 01:46]:> Another thing is that I already have an Apache envirmonment installed. > That is the main reason I didn''t try the OCRS, yet. Really don''t want > another Apache on my disk.my unasked-for take: I think if the one click ruby server is supposed to be entirely self-contained, lig might be a good idea. But bear in mind that almost every free UNIX (and OSX) ship with apache out of the box, and it''s trivial to add a rails vhost to it. I think you have to be wary of giving the idea that RoR neeeds a special webserver to do its'' job. What rails needs from its webserver is fastcgi and mod_rewrite support, and once we get rid of #2 it should run with everything. That in itself makes Rails more accessible to many people. But it does raise the bar slightly to tout lighttpd as the webserver of choice for Rails, if it''s another thing to install (under cygwin for the window users, which is no five minute job in itself). And it''s not an apache killer if you use anything it doesn''t support yet (DAV and subversion in my case). Having said all that lighttpd is now serving all the non-ssl vhosts on my LAN as of yesterday, it was about a 650k download and configuring it was a piece of cake :)> What I am mostly interested in is having the same environment in > production and development. To do that I use Cygwin/Colinux/Debian on a > Windows development and RH7.3 on the production side. It would be great > to have a native running Windows system though. At least as long as they > produce Photoshop for Linux or I get a Mac ;)Use gimp, man! -- ''Yeah, well I''m gonna build my own themepark! With blackjack aaand Hookers! Actually, forget the park. And the blackjack.'' -- Bender Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
I''m a Windows user and I have never worked (setup/configured) neither of them but if I had to choose between a workhorse and speedy stallion I sure know which one I would take. The speedy stallion ;) Curt Hibbs wrote:>Sascha Ebach wrote: > > >>Curt Hibbs schrieb: >> >> >>>The excited little child in me wanted to do lighttpd, but the >>> >>> >>little voice >> >> >>>in the back of my head was telling me exactly what you and >>> >>> >>Tobias have said. >> >> >>>I guess I just needed a reality check. >>> >>> >>You might want to rethink after reading this >> >>http://weblog.rubyonrails.com/archives/2005/02/08/the-rise-of-ligh >>ttpd-as-the-alternative-web-server/ >> >> > >I''ll reply at this point instead of at the end... > >I agree with you and David, too! This is precisely what got me interested in >Lighttpd in the first place. I''m torn between the staid, familiar workhorse >(apache) and lean, speedy stallion (lighttpd). > >I personally lean toward lighttpd because Rails represents the new vanguard >in web programming, and lighttpd seems to fit better with that vision. But >I''d really like to get more support for this position before I commit >myself. > >Curt > > > > >>The thing is: Apache is all nice and well, but hardly every necessary. >>Not if you look at what lighttpd has to offer. And not as a development >>platform either. Apache is just to big for that. I don''t agree with >>Tobias. I think Apache actually burdens such a distribution. If you >>could get lighttpd to *just work* out of the box on Windows, I don''t see >>any problems. >> >>I know that being used to something can be a powerful argument. But if >>you argue like that, why not simple stick to PHP/Perl/Python/Java >>whatever. Most ppl are used to that. Why in hell should I use Ruby and >>Rails? Maybe because they are small and feature rich? >> >>Another thing is that I already have an Apache envirmonment installed. >>That is the main reason I didn''t try the OCRS, yet. Really don''t want >>another Apache on my disk. >> >>The arguments that David brings in his posting are really >>convincing for me. >> >>1) Strong FCGI support. >> >>2) A very accessible lead developer. Jan is really great and very >>responsive with fixes and feature requests. >> >>3) Lighttpd has mod_rewrite support. But it looks like this won''t even >>be necessary in the future. >> >>Like I said above. If you can make it so that it just works. And if it >>will be easy to create new hosts for development, lighttpd is an >>excellent choice. Much easier and efficient than Apache. >> >>What I am mostly interested in is having the same environment in >>production and development. To do that I use Cygwin/Colinux/Debian on a >>Windows development and RH7.3 on the production side. It would be great >>to have a native running Windows system though. At least as long as they >>produce Photoshop for Linux or I get a Mac ;) >> >>Sascha >>_______________________________________________ >>Rails mailing list >>Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >>http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >>-- >>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 1/25/2005 >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >
While I like the sound of lighttpd, my 2 cents says Apache should be in the one click server at least to start with. Perhaps further down the line, it could include both webservers and give the user a choice of what to install? That also means the installer isn''t dependent on a port of lighttpd before it can come into existence... Chris
> While I like the sound of lighttpd, my 2 cents says Apache should be > in the one click server at least to start with.I''d ditto Chris, Tobias, and others saying Apache shouldn''t be replaced in the one-click. If you want people to jump on the Rails train, you want to emphasize its ability to work with common stuff (apache, mysql) as a first step. Then, if they want to go to more interesting platforms after getting acquainted with the platform''s power, they can. A drawback of some of the other platforms is the seeming tie-in to particular tools, as Tobias mentioned. When I looked around, OpenACS required AOLserver, Zope initially seemed more integrated with ZODB (so there was impression that MySQL/PostgreSQL support might be lower priority), etc. Even if the impressions aren''t true, best not to emphasize unusual platforms for newbies. Ideally, it would be great to have two ''one-clicks'' -- an apache version and a lighttpd version -- and emphasizes how well Rails works with various platforms. Then people like Sascha would opt for the lighttpd version. BTW, does Rails suffer from the same sort of thread-safe problems that PHP has for Apache 2.0 sans pre-fork module? Regards, Bill
Bill Katz wrote:>BTW, does Rails suffer from the same sort of thread-safe problems that PHP >has for Apache 2.0 sans pre-fork module? >Since I''m assuming apache would be configured to use rails through fastcgi, I don''t think those problems would be relevant. Just a guess.
Bill Katz wrote:> > > While I like the sound of lighttpd, my 2 cents says Apache should be > > in the one click server at least to start with. > > I''d ditto Chris, Tobias, and others saying Apache shouldn''t be replaced in > the one-click. If you want people to jump on the Rails train, you want to > emphasize its ability to work with common stuff (apache, mysql) as a first > step. Then, if they want to go to more interesting platforms after getting > acquainted with the platform''s power, they can. > > A drawback of some of the other platforms is the seeming tie-in to > particular tools, as Tobias mentioned. When I looked around, OpenACS > required AOLserver, Zope initially seemed more integrated with ZODB (so > there was impression that MySQL/PostgreSQL support might be lower > priority), > etc. Even if the impressions aren''t true, best not to emphasize unusual > platforms for newbies. > > Ideally, it would be great to have two ''one-clicks'' -- an apache > version and > a lighttpd version -- and emphasizes how well Rails works with various > platforms. Then people like Sascha would opt for the lighttpd version.Or, the installation wizard would the user to select a choice. I already want to do this with the database, but I will start with just MySQL (so I can actually get something out the door). Curt
Carl Youngblood wrote:> > Bill Katz wrote: > > >BTW, does Rails suffer from the same sort of thread-safe > problems that PHP > >has for Apache 2.0 sans pre-fork module? > > > Since I''m assuming apache would be configured to use rails through > fastcgi, I don''t think those problems would be relevant. Just a guess.Absolutely, it will be configured for fastcgi. Curt
Curt Hibbs wrote:> > >BTW, does Rails suffer from the same sort of thread-safe > > problems that PHP > > >has for Apache 2.0 sans pre-fork module? > > > > > Since I''m assuming apache would be configured to use rails through > > fastcgi, I don''t think those problems would be relevant. > > Just a guess. > > Absolutely, it will be configured for fastcgi.I''m currently using Rails with Apache 1.3 via CGI, as directed in http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/GettingStartedWithRails Thought this was a more debug-friendly setup than FastCGI for starting out with Rails. I''m fairly clueless about what goes on under-the-hood for Apache and whether Ruby uses non-threadsafe libs, but it sounds like if I go FastCGI, there won''t be any thread-safe issues on production servers, right? BTW Curt, putting a server choice in the installation wizard sounds great. I tried installing Rails with MySQL 4.1.9 on Win XP but ran into problems getting the new MySQL Ruby driver installed (to workaround new password hashing in MySQL 4.1). Look forward to using your one-click. -Bill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1>> I''d ditto Chris, Tobias, and others saying Apache shouldn''t be >> replaced in >> the one-click. If you want people to jump on the Rails train, you >> want toSeems like most of the talk is Apache or lighttpd, but the default config for lighttpd listens on port 81, and I think it can be safely included along with Apache in a one-click installer. And as an aside, I don''t see lighttpd entirely replacing Apache for everything in the near or long term. At the very least I''d consider using Apache as a proxy that can either handle SVN, DAV, web-level security filtering (at least the third one even for some dedicated apps) and then it passes on the remainder to lighttpd. And looking to easily managing a local development environment and being able to even write a small app that does it, there is the added potential benefit of local vhosting in mysql that one gets with lighttpd, and that I think is worth investigating (it''s something I''ve even wanted on a large scale for a while now). - - J -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQgptdlUyB+ajXkCLEQLJHQCg30nyWfZEWM/VnypLOrzGhnHWifUAn0gK pVO+O4tO+/1c1Xt1sC13eEtj =qzyF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jason Hoffman wrote:> > >> I''d ditto Chris, Tobias, and others saying Apache shouldn''t be > >> replaced in > >> the one-click. If you want people to jump on the Rails train, you > >> want to > > Seems like most of the talk is Apache or lighttpd, but the default > config for lighttpd listens on port 81, and I think it can be safely > included along with Apache in a one-click installer. > > And as an aside, I don''t see lighttpd entirely replacing Apache for > everything in the near or long term. At the very least I''d consider > using Apache as a proxy that can either handle SVN, DAV, web-level > security filtering (at least the third one even for some dedicated > apps) and then it passes on the remainder to lighttpd. > > And looking to easily managing a local development environment and > being able to even write a small app that does it, there is the added > potential benefit of local vhosting in mysql that one gets with > lighttpd, and that I think is worth investigating (it''s something I''ve > even wanted on a large scale for a while now).In the longer term, either or both is defnitely possible. But for now, I need to pick one and go with it initially so that I can actually release something instead of just talking about it. :-) Curt
jason-a6vwDsMajLfYtDzKz19aaEEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org
2005-Feb-09 21:06 UTC
RE: Should One-Click Ruby Server use Lighttpd?
> Curt wrote: > In the longer term, either or both is defnitely possible. But for now, I > need to pick one and go with it initially so that I can actually release > something instead of just talking about it. :-) >Apache only then, because this is an installer for Windows correct? I think lighttpd even under cygwin might be too much of an unknown, and could lead to things being a bit of a hassle for you. Then I''m sure lighttpd would find it''s way in there in the future. - J
jason-a6vwDsMajLfYtDzKz19aaEEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org wrote:> > > Curt wrote: > > In the longer term, either or both is defnitely possible. But for now, I > > need to pick one and go with it initially so that I can actually release > > something instead of just talking about it. :-) > > > > Apache only then, because this is an installer for Windows correct? I > think lighttpd even under cygwin might be too much of an unknown, and > could lead to things being a bit of a hassle for you.I wouldn''t use cygwin, I would do a native port to Windows. Curt