In my continuing eval of Rails, I am trying to pin down the best approach for deploying it. The existing hardware: 2 IBM eServer Blades with dual 2.8Ghz P4 Xeon and 2GB RAM. Running Windows Server 2003. Both IIS and Apache are available. The serving options: Webrick, mod_ruby, FastCGI, and Lighttpd. Research indicates the following: Lighttpd: Requires Cygwin under windows - which is not an option. mod_ruby: A search of comp.lang.ruby indicates that FastCGI is to be preferred over mod_ruby due to various issues with mod_ruby. (memory leaks, shared environment) FastCGI: Rick Olsen says: "Yes fcgi on Apache is unreliable. Use Lighttpd + fcgi for your rails application needs." Webrick: Probably not what we want for 10,000 users and financial transactions. If I were to take this at face value I would say that there is no reliable method of serving Rails on Windows for a mission critical application. I would take a paycut for some FreeBSD machines... xev
The issue with Apache/FCGI has to do with apache holding on to file handles or something like that. It was a big problem on Textdrive''s shared servers, which is why they use lighttpd. Here''s a tutorial on getting FCGI to work w/ IIS: http://bitmask.co.uk/notes/PermaLink.aspx?guid=b85838a0-5e60-4b1f-93ca-c2647fa326ff. I was able to get this working, but all except for the URL rewriting ISAPI filter. I suspect I had the INI in the wrong spot (should be with the DLL), but I found that out after I had given up and started hosting on textdrive. Hieraki was up and running fine with the ugly dispatch.fcgi URL on MSSQL though... On 5/16/05, Xevious <xevious-FgZ1Ih9JkPHx9BLsLxWUfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > In my continuing eval of Rails, I am trying to pin > down the best approach for deploying it. > > The existing hardware: > > 2 IBM eServer Blades with dual 2.8Ghz P4 Xeon and 2GB RAM. > Running Windows Server 2003. Both IIS and Apache are available. > > The serving options: Webrick, mod_ruby, FastCGI, and Lighttpd. > > Research indicates the following: > > Lighttpd: Requires Cygwin under windows - which is not an option. > > mod_ruby: A search of comp.lang.ruby indicates that FastCGI is to > be preferred over mod_ruby due to various issues with mod_ruby. > (memory leaks, shared environment) > > FastCGI: Rick Olsen says: "Yes fcgi on Apache is unreliable. Use > Lighttpd + fcgi for your rails application needs." > > Webrick: Probably not what we want for 10,000 users and financial > transactions. > > If I were to take this at face value I would say that there is no > reliable method of serving Rails on Windows for a mission critical > application. > > I would take a paycut for some FreeBSD machines... > > xev > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- rick http://techno-weenie.net
Rick Olson wrote:> The issue with Apache/FCGI has to do with apache holding on to file > handles or something like that. It was a big problem on Textdrive''s > shared servers, which is why they use lighttpd.I took another look at Cygwin - it seems much more robust and simpler to deploy than it was the last time I eyeballed it. I have lighttpd running with it on XP Pro - I haven''t tried it on Server 2003 yet. Anyone know if this is considered unclean/unsafe?> Here''s a tutorial on getting FCGI to work w/ IIS:That certainly didn''t leave me with a warm and fuzzy... xev
On 5/17/05, Xevious <xevious-FgZ1Ih9JkPHx9BLsLxWUfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Rick Olson wrote: > > The issue with Apache/FCGI has to do with apache holding on to file > > handles or something like that. It was a big problem on Textdrive''s > > shared servers, which is why they use lighttpd. > > I took another look at Cygwin - it seems much more robust and > simpler to deploy than it was the last time I eyeballed it. > > I have lighttpd running with it on XP Pro - I haven''t tried it > on Server 2003 yet. Anyone know if this is considered unclean/unsafe?If you succeed please write a how-to. lighttpd under cygwin is not the same animal as under Debian Linux. -- Jonas Elfström
Xevious wrote:> Rick Olson wrote: > >> The issue with Apache/FCGI has to do with apache holding on to file >> handles or something like that. It was a big problem on Textdrive''s >> shared servers, which is why they use lighttpd. > > > I took another look at Cygwin - it seems much more robust and > simpler to deploy than it was the last time I eyeballed it. > > I have lighttpd running with it on XP Pro - I haven''t tried it > on Server 2003 yet. Anyone know if this is considered unclean/unsafe? > >I tried it, and it was kinda messy. I''ve avoided running Ruby and Rails on cygwin, and still managed to get FCGI working in IIS, but it was somewhat messy. I stopped using it after watching the number of ruby instances multiply like rabbits, but I think that may just be a setting I''m missing...> >> Here''s a tutorial on getting FCGI to work w/ IIS: > > > That certainly didn''t leave me with a warm and fuzzy... > > xev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >
Hi xev, Are you using the Win32 ruby or Cygwin ruby ? Nev [ps: this might be a dumb question as I have no idea if Win32 rb will play nicely with cygwin] -----Original Message----- From: rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org [mailto:rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Xevious Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2005 1:15 AM To: rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org Subject: Re: [Rails] Scalable Rails Serving Rick Olson wrote:> The issue with Apache/FCGI has to do with apache holding on to file > handles or something like that. It was a big problem on Textdrive''s > shared servers, which is why they use lighttpd.I took another look at Cygwin - it seems much more robust and simpler to deploy than it was the last time I eyeballed it. I have lighttpd running with it on XP Pro - I haven''t tried it on Server 2003 yet. Anyone know if this is considered unclean/unsafe?> Here''s a tutorial on getting FCGI to work w/ IIS:That certainly didn''t leave me with a warm and fuzzy... xev _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Neville Burnell wrote:> [ps: this might be a dumb question as I have no idea if Win32 rb will > play nicely with cygwin]I am trying both. However lighttpd / fastcgi / ROR / Cygwin are not currently playing nicely together in any form on my XP box. xev
Jonas Elfström wrote:> If you succeed please write a how-to. lighttpd under cygwin is not the > same animal as under Debian Linux.No success. I have put approx 20 hours into it. I am going to pull the plug on it for the moment and try the Apache/fastcgi or IIS/fastcgi approach.. xev