I''m having some serious performance issues running Ruby/Rails on Windows Server 2003. I was thinking about letting Windows2003 handle the database (SS2000), and move Rails to a *nix box. Since, I''ve only dabbled in Linux, maybe someone could recommend a combination of Linux and webserver that would be easy to set up, as well as stable. I''d like to be able to SCGI, and it would be nice to have Subversion. I''ve also heard that lighttpd is preferred over Apache2. But, not sure whether to go with Fedora Core4, Debian 3.1, FreeBSD, ( I have copies of these), or something else entirely. Nothing I''ve looked at seem to work, ''out of the box''. So...if recommendations include links to tutorials or installation notes, that would be very helpful. -- Best Regards, -Larry "Work, work, work...there is no satisfactory alternative." --- E.Taft Benson _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Larry Kelly wrote:> I''m having some serious performance issues running Ruby/Rails on Windows > Server 2003. I was thinking about letting Windows2003 handle the database > (SS2000), and move Rails to a *nix box. Since, I''ve only dabbled in Linux, > maybe someone could recommend a combination of Linux and webserver that > would be easy to set up, as well as stable. I''d like to be able to SCGI, and > it would be nice to have Subversion. I''ve also heard that lighttpd is > preferred over Apache2. But, not sure whether to go with Fedora Core4, > Debian 3.1, FreeBSD, ( I have copies of these), or something else entirely. > Nothing I''ve looked at seem to work, ''out of the box''. So...if > recommendations include links to tutorials or installation notes, that would > be very helpful.I''ve been using CentOS4 with excellent results, particularly with the dag repository for RHEL4 added in to the configuration. -- Matt Nothing great was ever accomplished without _passion_
On 10/10/05, Larry Kelly <ldk2005@gmail.com> wrote:> I'm having some serious performance issues running Ruby/Rails on Windows > Server 2003. I was thinking about letting Windows2003 handle the database > (SS2000), and move Rails to a *nix box. Since, I've only dabbled in Linux, > maybe someone could recommend a combination of Linux and webserver that > would be easy to set up, as well as stable. I'd like to be able to SCGI, > and it would be nice to have Subversion. I've also heard that lighttpd is > preferred over Apache2. But, not sure whether to go with Fedora Core4, > Debian 3.1, FreeBSD, ( I have copies of these), or something else entirely. > Nothing I've looked at seem to work, 'out of the box'. So...if > recommendations include links to tutorials or installation notes, that would > be very helpful.Rails works pretty much anywhere you install it: http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/pages/GettingStartedWithRails And I really like the fact that Debian is first on the list there. Subversion runs pretty much anywhere too: http://subversion.tigris.org/project_packages.html#binary-packages What else can I google for you today? :) -- Greg Donald Zend Certified Engineer MySQL Core Certification http://destiney.com/ _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Ezra Zygmuntowicz
2005-Oct-10 22:40 UTC
Re: Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie
On Oct 10, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Larry Kelly wrote:> I''m having some serious performance issues running Ruby/Rails on > Windows Server 2003. I was thinking about letting Windows2003 > handle the database (SS2000), and move Rails to a *nix box. Since, > I''ve only dabbled in Linux, maybe someone could recommend a > combination of Linux and webserver that would be easy to set up, > as well as stable. I''d like to be able to SCGI, and it would be > nice to have Subversion. I''ve also heard that lighttpd is preferred > over Apache2. But, not sure whether to go with Fedora Core4, Debian > 3.1, FreeBSD, ( I have copies of these), or something else > entirely. Nothing I''ve looked at seem to work, ''out of the box''. > So...if recommendations include links to tutorials or installation > notes, that would be very helpful. > > -- > Best Regards, > -Larry > "Work, work, work...there is no satisfactory alternative." > --- E.Taft Benson > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >I heartily recommend Debian. It has the nicest package management system IMHO. SO it makes it easier to resolve dependencies and maintain your box. Especially if this is the first Linux box you will be administering. Cheers- -Ezra Zygmuntowicz Yakima Herald-Republic WebMaster http://yakimaherald.com 509-577-7732 ezra-gdxLOakOTQ9oetBuM9ipNAC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org
I agree with Debian (and derivatives such as Ubuntu and Mepis), but I''m recently finding Gentoo pretty nice as well in terms of package management and support. Gentoo definitely isn''t a newbie distro, but it''s pretty nice once you''ve got a bit of experience behind you. Has anyone got any comments about the *BSDs? Dave M. On 10/11/05, Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezra-gdxLOakOTQ9oetBuM9ipNAC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > On Oct 10, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Larry Kelly wrote: > > > I''m having some serious performance issues running Ruby/Rails on > > Windows Server 2003. I was thinking about letting Windows2003 > > handle the database (SS2000), and move Rails to a *nix box. Since, > > I''ve only dabbled in Linux, maybe someone could recommend a > > combination of Linux and webserver that would be easy to set up, > > as well as stable. I''d like to be able to SCGI, and it would be > > nice to have Subversion. I''ve also heard that lighttpd is preferred > > over Apache2. But, not sure whether to go with Fedora Core4, Debian > > 3.1, FreeBSD, ( I have copies of these), or something else > > entirely. Nothing I''ve looked at seem to work, ''out of the box''. > > So...if recommendations include links to tutorials or installation > > notes, that would be very helpful. > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > > -Larry > > "Work, work, work...there is no satisfactory alternative." > > --- E.Taft Benson > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails mailing list > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > > > I heartily recommend Debian. It has the nicest package management > system IMHO. SO it makes it easier to resolve dependencies and > maintain your box. Especially if this is the first Linux box you will > be administering. > > Cheers- > -Ezra Zygmuntowicz > Yakima Herald-Republic > WebMaster > http://yakimaherald.com > 509-577-7732 > ezra-gdxLOakOTQ9oetBuM9ipNAC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Thanks for the comments. The concensus appears to lean toward Debian. I''ll give ''Sarge'' a go. Wish me luck :>) -- Best Regards, -Larry "Work, work, work...there is no satisfactory alternative." --- E.Taft Benson _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Hi Destiney, You will raise a fight again which is the easist distribution. :P I prefer Debian. But OpenSUSE annance it''s the easist one. Regards, Ben destiney-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote:>On 10/10/05, Larry Kelly <ldk2005-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > >>I''m having some serious performance issues running Ruby/Rails on Windows >>Server 2003. I was thinking about letting Windows2003 handle the database >>(SS2000), and move Rails to a *nix box. Since, I''ve only dabbled in Linux, >>maybe someone could recommend a combination of Linux and webserver that >>would be easy to set up, as well as stable. I''d like to be able to SCGI, >>and it would be nice to have Subversion. I''ve also heard that lighttpd is >>preferred over Apache2. But, not sure whether to go with Fedora Core4, >>Debian 3.1, FreeBSD, ( I have copies of these), or something else entirely. >>Nothing I''ve looked at seem to work, ''out of the box''. So...if >>recommendations include links to tutorials or installation notes, that would >>be very helpful. >> >> > > >Rails works pretty much anywhere you install it: > >http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/pages/GettingStartedWithRails > >And I really like the fact that Debian is first on the list there. > > >Subversion runs pretty much anywhere too: > >http://subversion.tigris.org/project_packages.html#binary-packages > > >What else can I google for you today? :) > > >-- >Greg Donald >Zend Certified Engineer >MySQL Core Certification >http://destiney.com/ > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
2005-Oct-11 03:04 UTC
Re: Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie
Well ... I''ll put in a good word (as a Rails newbie) for Gentoo. Everything you need -- Apache, SCGI, Subversion, lighttpd, Ruby, Rails, and Gem -- is in the Gentoo repository, which is called "The Portage Tree". "trac" is there as well. Postgres, Mysql, sqlite -- all there. If you want, I''ll share my bash scripts to install all this magic; it''s not rocket science. I did manage to get Rails up on CentOS 4, but I never did find RPMs for everything and ended up erasing the native Ruby and building Ruby 1.8.3 from source, then installing "gem" and pulling down everything else with gem. Larry Kelly wrote:> I''m having some serious performance issues running Ruby/Rails on > Windows Server 2003. I was thinking about letting Windows2003 handle > the database (SS2000), and move Rails to a *nix box. Since, I''ve only > dabbled in Linux, maybe someone could recommend a combination of > Linux and webserver that would be easy to set up, as well as stable. > I''d like to be able to SCGI, and it would be nice to have Subversion. > I''ve also heard that lighttpd is preferred over Apache2. But, not sure > whether to go with Fedora Core4, Debian 3.1, FreeBSD, ( I have copies > of these), or something else entirely. Nothing I''ve looked at seem to > work, ''out of the box''. So...if recommendations include links to > tutorials or installation notes, that would be very helpful. > > -- > Best Regards, > -Larry > "Work, work, work...there is no satisfactory alternative." > --- E.Taft Benson > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >-- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.borasky-research.net/ http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ http://pdxneurosemantics.com http://pdx-sales-coach.com http://algocompsynth.com
Larry Kelly wrote:> I''m having some serious performance issues running Ruby/Rails on Windows > Server 2003. I was thinking about letting Windows2003 handle the > database (SS2000), and move Rails to a *nix box. Since, I''ve only > dabbled in Linux, maybe someone could recommend a combination of Linux > and webserver that would be easy to set up, as well as stable. I''d like > to be able to SCGI, and it would be nice to have Subversion. I''ve also > heard that lighttpd is preferred over Apache2. But, not sure whether to > go with Fedora Core4, Debian 3.1, FreeBSD, ( I have copies of these), or > something else entirely. Nothing I''ve looked at seem to work, ''out of > the box''. So...if recommendations include links to tutorials or > installation notes, that would be very helpful.I''m on linux (gentoo) but for performance, you probably might experience the best results on FreeBSD.. it''s not for noobs though :( As for linux, any newbie distro would do fine I think including suse, ubuntu, etcetc.. Kristof
> I''m on linux (gentoo) but for performance, you probably might experience the > best results on FreeBSD.. it''s not for noobs though :( > > As for linux, any newbie distro would do fine I think including suse, ubuntu, > etcetc.. > > Kristof > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >Nobody uses OpenBSD? I like it because of the consistent OS design choices the team makes. It runs pretty much out of the box (just don''t expect fancy GUI wizardry to help you through the initial steps), and it even supported my promise ata/133 controller before debian did. And it''s fast too.
Gijs Nijholt wrote:>>I''m on linux (gentoo) but for performance, you probably might experience the >>best results on FreeBSD.. it''s not for noobs though :( >> >>As for linux, any newbie distro would do fine I think including suse, ubuntu, >>etcetc.. >> >>Kristof >>_______________________________________________ >>Rails mailing list >>Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >>http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> > > > > Nobody uses OpenBSD? > I like it because of the consistent OS design choices the team makes. > It runs pretty much out of the box (just don''t expect fancy GUI > wizardry to help you through the initial steps), and it even supported > my promise ata/133 controller before debian did. > And it''s fast too.I have an OpenBSD at home for desktop use on an old box, like it a lot, and also a snap to set up rails on it. Still, as far as I heard it lacks serious performance under load. Kristof
Thomas Riboulet
2005-Oct-11 10:11 UTC
Re: Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie
I''ve tried and managed to get Rails up and running ona NetBSD box 2.0 and 2.0.2, need to do some things by hand but it''s working. NetBSD and GNU/Linux supports Xen, could be nice for Rails I think. I''ll try that one of these days I think. Anyone tried ? On 10/11/05, Kristof Jozsa <dyn-Lj6TOhj6PqOT9ig0jae3mg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Gijs Nijholt wrote: > >>I''m on linux (gentoo) but for performance, you probably might experience the > >>best results on FreeBSD.. it''s not for noobs though :( > >> > >>As for linux, any newbie distro would do fine I think including suse, ubuntu, > >>etcetc.. > >> > >>Kristof > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Rails mailing list > >>Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > >>http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >> > > > > > > > > Nobody uses OpenBSD? > > I like it because of the consistent OS design choices the team makes. > > It runs pretty much out of the box (just don''t expect fancy GUI > > wizardry to help you through the initial steps), and it even supported > > my promise ata/133 controller before debian did. > > And it''s fast too. > > I have an OpenBSD at home for desktop use on an old box, like it a lot, and also > a snap to set up rails on it. Still, as far as I heard it lacks serious > performance under load. > > Kristof > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- Thom/ange http://ange.librium.org
On 10/11/05, Kristof Jozsa <dyn-Lj6TOhj6PqOT9ig0jae3mg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I have an OpenBSD at home for desktop use on an old box, like it a lot, and also > a snap to set up rails on it. Still, as far as I heard it lacks serious > performance under load. > > Kristof > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >(sorry if this may be heading a bit in the offtopic direction) OpenBSD might be a slower than several alternatives, that''s probably true. But afaik that''s more or less a design issue as well: for example, OpenBSD''s native filesystem (FFS) does synchronous disk-i/o, while Linux'' Ext2 does asynchronous i/o. The reason for this is increased filesystem reliability for OpenBSD, at the cost of speed. And most of these things can be tuned for speed ofcourse. But then again, I''m still a newb. cheers
On Tuesday 11 Oct 2005 01:15, David Mitchell wrote:> I agree with Debian (and derivatives such as Ubuntu and Mepis), but > I''m recently finding Gentoo pretty nice as well in terms of package > management and support. Gentoo definitely isn''t a newbie distro, but > it''s pretty nice once you''ve got a bit of experience behind you.The thing that I particularly like about Gentoo, is that once you get over the initial hurdle of getting it up and running, in the long term, it probably is one of the easiest Linux distros around. Maintenance is a no-brainer, and installing new software is even easier than on Windows, IMHO. Yes the initial stuff is hard, and probably too hard for a Linux noob. It is possible though, if you have a little bit of Linux experience, a good amount of patience and desire to make it work, perhaps another box with a web connection so you can use the Gentoo forums (although you can do this using the box you are installing on: links or lynx in another terminal session) - that''s how I did it first time, although you probably need to set aside a day or so to really make it work well. If you have little bit of Linux experience, are patient and follow the docs carefully, it will work - and with a bit of luck, it will work well. As long as you''re prepared to read and learn (including learning from your mistakes, when it doesn''t work) then on the whole, Gentoo is actually pretty easy. Certainly in the longer term, I''ve always found that Gentoo boxes are extremely easy to maintain. The forums are also excellent, and full of people who will know the fixes to almost anything that can go wrong - in fact, the extremely helpful and friendly forums are one of the best reasons to use Gentoo, although I''ve heard good things about the Ubuntu forums too. For binary distros where you won''t have to wait around while things compile, you should probably check stuff like Debian, Ubuntu (or Kubuntu), Mepis or OpenSuSE. I think these days if looking for a binary distro, I would personally go with Ubuntu or Debian. So to sum up: Gentoo if you have the time to learn stuff, Ubuntu if you want something that''s going to be up and running quickly, Debian if you want to stay a little bit more mainstream. All just IMHO though - I''m hardly a Linux god! ~Dave -- Dave Silvester Rent-A-Monkey Website Development Web: http://www.rentamonkey.com/
Dave Silvester wrote:>On Tuesday 11 Oct 2005 01:15, David Mitchell wrote: > > >>I agree with Debian (and derivatives such as Ubuntu and Mepis), but >>I''m recently finding Gentoo pretty nice as well in terms of package >>management and support. Gentoo definitely isn''t a newbie distro, but >>it''s pretty nice once you''ve got a bit of experience behind you. >> >>There is one challenge that no one has seemed to mention yet. You said that you plan to stay with MSSQL. I am assuimg 2K. Connecting to MSSQL from Linux can be challenging. I do not know about within Ruby, but this is something to consider. I use Linux, but I use PostgreSQL as my DBMS. I would have to agree that the Debian derivitves are easiest to maintain (Apt and Synaptic are a powerful pair). Debian as of Sarge is not bad to install, but nothing is easier than Knoppix or Ubuntu. Ubuntu had a version of Ruby that was not compatible with Rails for a while, though. One more to look at: SuSE. Now that there is a community version, it will have a lower barrier to entry, and YaST is a nice configuration tool. Basically the point of all of my babbling is this: Linux and Rails work together great, and it is pretty easy to set up (tar -xzvf rubygems; ruby setup.rb; gem install rails) so you can just pick the one you like. If I were picking one for complete noob, I would have to say Knoppix. It is as easy to install as Ubuntu, and no danger of a busted Ruby version.
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
2005-Oct-11 11:17 UTC
Re: Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie
On Oct 11, 2005, at 4:09 AM, Grant Johnson wrote:> There is one challenge that no one has seemed to mention yet. You > said > that you plan to stay with MSSQL. I am assuimg 2K. Connecting to > MSSQL from Linux can be challenging. I do not know about within > Ruby, > but this is something to consider.I had a commercial job hooking to an MSSQL database from Python (on Linux and Windows) in 1999. Given that it was possible then, I can''t imagine it couldn''t be done with Ruby now. It wasn''t *that* difficult, just quirky to set up. -- _Deirdre http://deirdre.net
Deirdre Saoirse Moen wrote:> On Oct 11, 2005, at 4:09 AM, Grant Johnson wrote: > >> There is one challenge that no one has seemed to mention yet. You said >> that you plan to stay with MSSQL. I am assuimg 2K. Connecting to >> MSSQL from Linux can be challenging. I do not know about within Ruby, >> but this is something to consider. > > > I had a commercial job hooking to an MSSQL database from Python (on > Linux and Windows) in 1999. Given that it was possible then, I can''t > imagine it couldn''t be done with Ruby now. It wasn''t *that* > difficult, just quirky to set up. >My point exactly. It can be challenging. It is possible, it is just not simple. He was looking for the easiest Linux environment. I was not sure he would want to deal with the challenging db connection setup. It may be easier for him, depending on what other applications use the database, to migrate with a simple plug in database. I use PostgreSQL because it has the more advanced features, but is still easy to set up, configure, and maintain. MySQL is also easy to configure and set up.
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
2005-Oct-11 13:37 UTC
Re: Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie
Dave Silvester wrote:>Yes the initial stuff is hard, and probably too hard for a Linux noob. It is >possible though, if you have a little bit of Linux experience, a good amount >of patience and desire to make it work, perhaps another box with a web >connection so you can use the Gentoo forums (although you can do this using >the box you are installing on: links or lynx in another terminal session) - >that''s how I did it first time, although you probably need to set aside a day >or so to really make it work well. If you have little bit of Linux >experience, are patient and follow the docs carefully, it will work - and >with a bit of luck, it will work well. > >The only really tricky part about the Gentoo install is the same as the only tricky part of installing *any* Linux distro. That is dual booting Linux onto an existing Windows box without accidentally nuking Windows. A fresh install of Gentoo to a hard disk that does not need anything preserved is no harder than a fresh install of any other Linux. I''ve got it down to a few bash scripts. It does take some time if you want to recompile the whole enchilada, but that is pretty rare. Gentoo supplies a release every six months with binary packages for all the common desktop and server packages, optimized for x86, i686, athlon-xp, pentium3 and pentium4. To bring up a Gentoo Rails server would probably not require recompiling Ruby or Apache. I''m not sure about lighttpd. After than, all you would need to do is put the machine on the Internet and type "emerge rails" and you''d be on the air.>As long as you''re prepared to read and learn (including learning from your >mistakes, when it doesn''t work) then on the whole, Gentoo is actually pretty >easy. Certainly in the longer term, I''ve always found that Gentoo boxes are >extremely easy to maintain. The forums are also excellent, and full of >people who will know the fixes to almost anything that can go wrong - in >fact, the extremely helpful and friendly forums are one of the best reasons >to use Gentoo, although I''ve heard good things about the Ubuntu forums too. > >We seem to have at least three people on this list (including me) familiar enough with Gentoo that any Rails person ought to be able to get Gentoo help here. :) If this group has a file repository, I''d be willing to post all of my Gentoo install bash scripts and Rails tweaks to it. I haven''t gotten to the stage in Rails where I''m hooking it up to Apache or lighttpd -- I''m still using WEBrick. I''m essentially Apache-illiterate anyhow. :)>For binary distros where you won''t have to wait around while things compile, >you should probably check stuff like Debian, Ubuntu (or Kubuntu), Mepis or >OpenSuSE. I think these days if looking for a binary distro, I would >personally go with Ubuntu or Debian. > >I''d also recommend looking at the RHEL clones if you want to be able to tap into the wealth of Red Hat sysadmin expertise out there. I run CentOS 4, although White Box Linux and Tao Linux are also quite viable. I recommend staying away from Fedora for servers ... they''re a bit too bleeding edge for my taste. The Ruby on CentOS 4 is 1.6, IIRC, so you''ll need to do some RPM-hunting if you want to run Rails. I ended up nuking the CentOS Ruby entirely and building the whole Ruby, Gem and Rails toolchain from source, so I have Ruby 1.8.3.>So to sum up: Gentoo if you have the time to learn stuff, Ubuntu if you want >something that''s going to be up and running quickly, Debian if you want to >stay a little bit more mainstream. > >CentOS if you want to be up and running quickly and Red-Hat compatible, provided you have access to the latest Ruby toolchain in RPM format. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.borasky-research.net/ http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ http://pdxneurosemantics.com http://pdx-sales-coach.com http://algocompsynth.com
Ezra Zygmuntowicz wrote:> I heartily recommend Debian. It has the nicest package management > system IMHO. SO it makes it easier to resolve dependencies and > maintain your box. Especially if this is the first Linux box you will > be administering.Debian is not the only distro with a dependency resolver. You can install apt for RPM based systems, and you can also use yum on Redhat/Fedora/SuSE/others? However I agree, Debian is very good and I would certainly consider it for a production server. Will jessop
Can you tell us about your windows 2003 setup? Are you using apache and fast cgi? I am interested in that I have ruby setup on windows as well and it seems to be performing find under load. What sort of performance testing have you done? -----Original Message----- From: rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org [mailto:rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Greg Donald Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 6:01 PM To: rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org Subject: Re: [Rails] Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie On 10/10/05, Larry Kelly <ldk2005-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I''m having some serious performance issues running Ruby/Rails on Windows > Server 2003. I was thinking about letting Windows2003 handle the database > (SS2000), and move Rails to a *nix box. Since, I''ve only dabbled inLinux,> maybe someone could recommend a combination of Linux and webserver that > would be easy to set up, as well as stable. I''d like to be able to SCGI, > and it would be nice to have Subversion. I''ve also heard that lighttpd is > preferred over Apache2. But, not sure whether to go with Fedora Core4, > Debian 3.1, FreeBSD, ( I have copies of these), or something
On 10/11/05, Robi Sen <rsen-eUc2XO7YEjkOH/0RNv2/ag@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Can you tell us about your windows 2003 setup? Are you using apache and > fast cgi? I am interested in that I have ruby setup on windows as well and > it seems to be performing find under load. What sort of performance > testing > have you done?Hi Robi, Windows 2003 is running a Dell server 3.0ghz processor with 1-GB ram. IIS6 installed. SQLServer 2000. Ruby 1.8.2 ( one-click installer), Rails 0.13.1. Its main problem is that Rails takes 30- 40 seconds to start. Id be interested in how yours is configured. I will problably have to take mine out of production and completely rebuild it, if the problem isn''t resolved soon. -- Best Regards, -Larry "Work, work, work...there is no satisfactory alternative." --- E.Taft Benson _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Deirdre Saoirse Moen
2005-Oct-11 18:19 UTC
Re: Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie
On Oct 11, 2005, at 5:17 AM, Grant Johnson wrote:> Deirdre Saoirse Moen wrote: > My point exactly. It can be challenging. It is possible, it is > just not simple. He was looking for the easiest Linux > environment. I was not sure he would want to deal with the > challenging db connection setup. It may be easier for him, > depending on what other applications use the database, to migrate > with a simple plug in database. I use PostgreSQL because it has > the more advanced features, but is still easy to set up, configure, > and maintain. MySQL is also easy to configure and set up.At the time, the hardest thing to set up was Samba -- back in 1999, the existing documentation about Samba assumed that you wanted to replace the windows SMB server with a Linux one and use Windows clients to connect. My situation was the reverse: using a Linux machine as a client. I''m guessing that the intervening six years have spawned a piece of documentation or two. I''m assuming that there was a reason for having chosen MSSqlServer that goes beyond ease of installation. I''m not out to criticize people''s choices of databases, though I also use primarily PostgresSQL and MySQL. -- _Deirdre http://deirdre.net
Getting everything up and running for Rails development was a snap on Ubuntu with its Synaptic package manager. -PJ http://pjhyett.com
You are using IIS? I suggest first trying Apache with FasctCGI and see how
that works out.
_____
From: rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
[mailto:rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of Larry Kelly
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:00 PM
To: rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [Rails] Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie
On 10/11/05, Robi Sen <rsen-eUc2XO7YEjkOH/0RNv2/ag@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
Can you tell us about your windows 2003 setup? Are you using apache and
fast cgi? I am interested in that I have ruby setup on windows as well and
it seems to be performing find under load. What sort of performance testing
have you done?
Hi Robi,
Windows 2003 is running a Dell server 3.0ghz processor with 1-GB ram. IIS6
installed. SQLServer 2000. Ruby 1.8.2 ( one-click installer), Rails 0.13.1.
Its main problem is that Rails takes 30- 40 seconds to start. Id be
interested in how yours is configured. I will problably have to take mine
out of production and completely rebuild it, if the problem isn''t
resolved
soon.
-- Best Regards,
-Larry
"Work, work, work...there is no satisfactory alternative."
--- E.Taft Benson
_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On 10/10/05, Larry Kelly <ldk2005-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > I''m having some serious performance issues running Ruby/Rails on Windows > Server 2003. I was thinking about letting Windows2003 handle the database > (SS2000), and move Rails to a *nix box. Since, I''ve only dabbled in Linux, > maybe someone could recommend a combination of Linux and webserver that > would be easy to set up, as well as stable. I''d like to be able to SCGI, and > it would be nice to have Subversion. I''ve also heard that lighttpd is > preferred over Apache2. But, not sure whether to go with Fedora Core4, > Debian 3.1, FreeBSD, ( I have copies of these), or something else > entirely. Nothing I''ve looked at seem to work, ''out of the box''. So...if > recommendations include links to tutorials or installation notes, that would > be very helpful. > > -- > Best Regards, > -Larry > "Work, work, work...there is no satisfactory alternative." > --- E.Taft Benson > _______________________________________________ >Is support important to you (meaning non-community support). That limits your choices some. SuSE would be a good choice if you need commercial support, as it''s less expensive than Red Hat, but just as good IMO. -- http://www.approachingnormal.com _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Is there a reason, besides $$, that RHEL 3 and 4 aren''t offered up as a good Linux counterpart to Win 2003? RHEL comes with many dedicated servers and even though I''m a Linux noob, it hasn''t been too difficult (yet). You also have the benefit of tons of books/documentation. I guess my question could be rephrased: what aspects of Gentoo make it superior to RHEL 3/4 for a production server? _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On 10/11/05, Deirdre Saoirse Moen <deirdre-mzk6fgDMp2XR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > On Oct 11, 2005, at 5:17 AM, Grant Johnson wrote: > > > Deirdre Saoirse Moen wrote: > > My point exactly. It can be challenging. It is possible, it is > > just not simple. He was looking for the easiest Linux > > environment. I was not sure he would want to deal with the > > challenging db connection setup.Was hoping that talking to SQLSERVER from today''s Linux versions wouldn''t be a problem. It''s a common enough practise to separate the db server from the web server. It may be easier for him,> > depending on what other applications use the database, to migrate > > with a simple plug in database. I use PostgreSQL because it has > > the more advanced features, but is still easy to set up, configure, > > and maintain. MySQL is also easy to configure and set up. > > I''m assuming that there was a reason for having chosen MSSqlServer > that goes beyond ease of installation. I''m not out to criticize > people''s choices of databases, though I also use primarily > PostgresSQL and MySQL.The database was already developed MSSsqlServer when I came onboard. It''s a Windows shop. I am familiar with the DBA aspects of SQLSERVER. MySQL won''t be suitable for this project until 5.0 or 5.1 stable. PostGgresSQL may be a possibility, if the Windows native version is solid. But, some of the tools we use won''t talk to PostgresSQL yet. Specifically, we need good graphical diagramming tool, and a migration tool. Bottom line, there isn''t time to learn another database system, and re-write all the stored procedures, triggers etc. -- Best Regards, -Larry "Work, work, work...there is no satisfactory alternative." --- E.Taft Benson _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Jacob Quinn Shenker
2005-Oct-12 00:31 UTC
Re: Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie
> what aspects of Gentoo make it superior to RHEL 3/4 for a > production server?Gentoo is a lot like FreeBSD. The best point, IMHO, is Portage/Ports. For someone who's been in "rpm hell" many times, I know it isn't fun. With Portage, it's not a problem. Portage is a source-based package management system, that means that you can easily mix software compiled from source manually and Portage's packages; you are never restricted to use a certain version of a library with a specific package, nor do you have to like with the default compile flags. The Gentoo people like to say that Gentoo is a "metadistribution" because it can fill so many roles so well depending on how you configure it. I've been on Gentoo for the ~9 months, and I'd have to agree. I'd personally vote for FreeBSD for production and Gentoo for development, because FreeBSD and Rails == happiness (see http://www.flpr.org/)... why not Gentoo for production? Oh, Gentoo'd be fine, just I think that FreeBSD is more oriented towards stability and Gentoo emphasizes cutting-edge development (of course, that doesn't mean Gentoo *can't* be stable or FreeBSD is *bad* for development). I hope this answers you question... Jacob P.S. Why MSSQL? I know you answered this, but... PostgreSQL and MySQL are so much nicer to deal with on *nix/*BSD and with Rails. At least try PostgreSQL. It actually is quite solid on Windows... but if you're running your web server on *nix anyway, why not use *nix for your db server? Anyway... /mini-rant> > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
I just took the plunge myself. As a long time Mac user, I found Ubuntu the easiest to get running. In my past attempts to migrate I tried Fedora, Mandrake, and Suse. Each time I stumble and grew frustrated until I came across Ubuntu. My only gripe with it is that the prepackaged Ruby is missing the extra pieces, rdoc, etc. I remedied that by simple compiling my own. -- Lon Baker Speedymac LLC
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
2005-Oct-12 04:45 UTC
Re: Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie
Jacob Quinn Shenker wrote:>I''d personally vote for FreeBSD for production and Gentoo for >development, because FreeBSD and Rails == happiness (see >http://www.flpr.org/)... why not Gentoo for production? Oh, Gentoo''d >be fine, just I think that FreeBSD is more oriented towards stability >and Gentoo emphasizes cutting-edge development (of course, that >doesn''t mean Gentoo *can''t* be stable or FreeBSD is *bad* for >development). >Actually, updating Gentoo is so easy and so much fun (emerge --sync; emerge -uvDN world) that it takes real discipline to leave a Gentoo system un-updated. :) Gentoo "stable" seems to be quite stable. I have enough machines that I can leave one in a boring stable state and not feel like I''m missing out on something. :) The only complaint I have with Gentoo maintenance is they don''t have a little light bulb on the desktop that flashes if you need a security update. Red Hat''s had that for years, and it wouldn''t be all that difficult to do in Gentoo -- but nobody has gotten a round tuit. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.borasky-research.net/ http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ http://pdxneurosemantics.com http://pdx-sales-coach.com http://algocompsynth.com
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
2005-Oct-12 04:52 UTC
Re: Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie
Larry Kelly wrote:> > > Was hoping that talking to SQLSERVER from today''s Linux versions > wouldn''t be a problem. It''s a common enough practise to separate the > db server from the web server.Does ODBC (unixODBC) do what you need? It can certainly talk to an offboard SQL Server database. Another "must-have" tool for databases is DBDesigner. This is an "Erwin-like" tool that works with at least MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQL Server -- ODBC too, I think. More to the point, does ActiveRecord have any requirements ODBC can''t meet?> The database was already developed MSSsqlServer when I came onboard. > It''s a Windows shop. I am familiar with the DBA aspects of SQLSERVER. > MySQL won''t be suitable for this project until 5.0 or 5.1 stable. > PostGgresSQL may be a possibility, if the Windows native version is > solid. But, some of the tools we use won''t talk to PostgresSQL yet. > Specifically, we need good graphical diagramming tool, and a migration > tool. Bottom line, there isn''t time to learn another database system, > and re-write all the stored procedures, triggers etc.See DBDesigner above for the diagramming. I don''t know anything about migrations, except that they make the people a few cubes away at work curse with great regularity. Profanity is the one language all programmers know best. :) BTW, DBDesigner is in Java and runs on a Linux workstation or a Windows machine. Most like Solaris too, being in Java. I don''t know about Macs.> > > > > > > > > -- > Best Regards, > -Larry > "Work, work, work...there is no satisfactory alternative." > --- E.Taft Benson > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >-- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.borasky-research.net/ http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ http://pdxneurosemantics.com http://pdx-sales-coach.com http://algocompsynth.com
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
2005-Oct-12 04:56 UTC
Re: Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie
Bill Katz wrote:> Is there a reason, besides $$, that RHEL 3 and 4 aren''t offered up as > a good Linux counterpart to Win 2003? RHEL comes with many dedicated > servers and even though I''m a Linux noob, it hasn''t been too difficult > (yet). You also have the benefit of tons of books/documentation. I > guess my question could be rephrased: what aspects of Gentoo make it > superior to RHEL 3/4 for a production server?Well ... cost. But that shouldn''t be an issue in the corporate world. As I said earlier, CentOS, White Box Linux and Tao Linux are low-cost alternatives to RHEL if you want to do things the "Red Hat" way without spending the money. I''ve had a lot more luck with CentOS than I have with Fedora -- I won''t touch Fedora. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.borasky-research.net/ http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ http://pdxneurosemantics.com http://pdx-sales-coach.com http://algocompsynth.com
> >> The database was already developed MSSsqlServer when I came onboard. >> It''s a Windows shop. I am familiar with the DBA aspects of >> SQLSERVER. MySQL won''t be suitable for this project until 5.0 or 5.1 >> stable. PostGgresSQL may be a possibility, if the Windows native >> version is solid. But, some of the tools we use won''t talk to >> PostgresSQL yet. Specifically, we need good graphical diagramming >> tool, and a migration tool. Bottom line, there isn''t time to learn >> another database system, and re-write all the stored procedures, >> triggers etc. >If I was you I''d be most worried about the stored procedures and triggers, these are by definition non-portable (and as an aside something the DB vendors push almost constantly - they love that lock-in). If your DB relies heavily on these, building the front-end (web/GUI) could be a nightmare with anything other than the MS tools. I''m sure ActiveRecord can passthrough calls to stored procedures, but then you''re not really using your model properly - indeed it''s like View+Controller+Hard-coded T-SQL, not the best recipe for success, although I note that this is the MS recommended best practice for developing an application (stuff as much logic as possible in the database) - or at least it was last time I looked Kev
Jacob Quinn Shenker
2005-Oct-12 06:26 UTC
Re: Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie
On 10/11/05, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:> > > Jacob Quinn Shenker wrote: > > >I'd personally vote for FreeBSD for production and Gentoo for > >development, because FreeBSD and Rails == happiness (see > >http://www.flpr.org/)... why not Gentoo for production? Oh, Gentoo'd > >be fine, just I think that FreeBSD is more oriented towards stability > >and Gentoo emphasizes cutting-edge development (of course, that > >doesn't mean Gentoo *can't* be stable or FreeBSD is *bad* for > >development). > > > Actually, updating Gentoo is so easy and so much fun (emerge --sync; > emerge -uvDN world) that it takes real discipline to leave a Gentoo > system un-updated. :) Gentoo "stable" seems to be quite stable. I have > enough machines that I can leave one in a boring stable state and not > feel like I'm missing out on something. :) > > The only complaint I have with Gentoo maintenance is they don't have a > little light bulb on the desktop that flashes if you need a security > update. Red Hat's had that for years, and it wouldn't be all that > difficult to do in Gentoo -- but nobody has gotten a round tuit.Yeah. I've been running an amd64, where *everything* is marked as unstable, and so some things actually are unstable while most things work fine. Some packages have issues (due to lack of amd64 maintainers) on amd64, which is too bad, because otherwise it would be a top-notch 64-bit distro. On a standard x86 system, I imaging things would be better. Jacob> > -- > M. Edward (Ed) Borasky > > http://www.borasky-research.net/ > http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ > > http://pdxneurosemantics.com > http://pdx-sales-coach.com > http://algocompsynth.com > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Or, ask in the IIS6 support groups. Somebody may have run into this before. I''m guessing MS would really like people to use RoR on windows server, and would help out. But Apache does work on Windows, so that might be the easiest thing to try. Warren Seltzer -----Original Message----- From: rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org [mailto:rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Robi Sen Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 8:39 PM To: rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org Subject: RE: [Rails] Which Linux platform is easiest for Rails newbie You are using IIS? I suggest first trying Apache with FasctCGI and see how that works out. _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails