Hi, I thought I''d give lighttpd and FastCGI a go but the latest version I''ve found for fastcgi is 2.4.0 which was released in January 2003. Is this the right version? Can anyone recommend the versions I should use for FastCGI et al and where to find them? I''m not sure I''ve really found what I''m looking for... -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On 3/28/06, Pete <miggyx@peteslan.net> wrote:> > Hi, > > I thought I''d give lighttpd and FastCGI a go but the latest version I''ve > found for fastcgi is 2.4.0 which was released in January 2003. Is this > the right version? > > Can anyone recommend the versions I should use for FastCGI et al and > where to find them? I''m not sure I''ve really found what I''m looking > for... > > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >May I suggest looking into Mongrel? http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/news.html Works great on Win2003!! -- ------------------------------ Forget the icing. Bake the Cake! - the epi-centered developer ------------------------------ Peter Fitzgibbons -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060328/9161e740/attachment-0001.html
Is there any benefit to mongrel over FastCGI ? I''m just trying to figure out how it fits in :) Not too familiar with all this stuff as I''ve come from a PHP / Java background and have never needed to play with CGI et al :) -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Also, what is the point of putting say apache in front of lighttpd? If people wanted to use lighttpd because it handles better than Apache udner load... then why put Apache in front of lighttpd? :S -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On 3/28/06, Pete <miggyx@peteslan.net> wrote:> Also, what is the point of putting say apache in front of lighttpd? If > people wanted to use lighttpd because it handles better than Apache > udner load... then why put Apache in front of lighttpd? :SBecause you might have older apps (PHP maybe) already up and running on Apache virtual hosts. Your lighttpd sevrer basically handles one of those hosts and runs your Rails app. -- James
Say you''re on a shared box and don''t have administrator access, which is required to bind lighttpd to port 80. Apache virtual hosting is usually bound to port 80 by default, so if you''re on (e.g.) TextDrive you *must* have Apache proxy its requests for http://yourdomain.tld/ over to http://yourdomain.tld:0000/ (where 0000 is the port number you''ve set up for lighttpd). Similarly, your server may have some content running under Apache (again, bound to port 80 by default) and your lightty server is running in addition to other stuff. Your options are to switch to lighttpd for _all_ your web serving needs, but depending on your situation that may not be convenient or possible. So putting Apache in front makes it easy to use lighttpd for Rails and Apache for everything else. If you''re in a situation where you either do not have admin access or must use Apache to serve some content on a given domain, then you should put Apache in front. If your Rails app is going to be served on its own (sub)domain, or if you''re in a position to serve EVERYTHING via lightty, and you have administrator access, then you can simply bind lighttpd to port 80 and cut out the middleman. - DD On 3/28/06, Pete <miggyx@peteslan.net> wrote:> > Also, what is the point of putting say apache in front of lighttpd? If > people wanted to use lighttpd because it handles better than Apache > udner load... then why put Apache in front of lighttpd? :S > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- David Demaree Owner and Web Chef, Practicalmadness david@practicalmadness.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060328/57a257bf/attachment.html
If the majority of the app is dynamic content i.e there are a few graphics files etc but only a few, is it worth going with lighty + mongrel / fcgi or could mongrel be used happily by itself? In the end ( not neccesarily with this app ) but I would want to scale as it is described in the "agile development on rails" book. I figured I''d try and learning how to set it up properly before I urgently needed it :) -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.