Rails - Apr 2006 - Can someone please explain Lighttpd + Mongrel + Rails.

I know that Mongrel is a web server that hosts rails applications.  But 
i don''t understand what part Lighttpd (or Apache) has in the setup.  I 
know that you can use Mongrel on its own.  What does Lighttpd improve 
on?

Thanks,
Chris

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Chris Richards wrote:
> I know that Mongrel is a web server that hosts rails applications.  But 
> i don''t understand what part Lighttpd (or Apache) has in the
setup.  I
> know that you can use Mongrel on its own.  What does Lighttpd improve 
> on?
Some folks might use Lighttpd as an asset server.  This would serve any 
static content (Light is FAST for that).  Mongrel would be used as the 
app server, running the rails app to serve any dynamic content.

A bit like putting tomcat instance behind Apache.  Apache would serve 
the static stuff quickly, but delegate to tomcat as an appserver.  With 
the rails model, I *think* you can either do it tat way, or the other 
way round.  Instead of the static at the front, delegating back, the 
dynamic server is at the front, delegating static serves to the asset 
server (which is, IIRC a config parameter somewhere).

Alternatively, I could be talking total nonsense.

Alan

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On Apr 20, 2006, at 16:19, Alan Francis wrote:
> A bit like putting tomcat instance behind Apache.  Apache would serve
> the static stuff quickly, but delegate to tomcat as an appserver.   
> With
> the rails model, I *think* you can either do it tat way, or the other
> way round.  Instead of the static at the front, delegating back, the
> dynamic server is at the front, delegating static serves to the asset
> server (which is, IIRC a config parameter somewhere).
Interesting, could anyone explain how to do this?
> Alternatively, I could be talking total nonsense.
Haaahaha

-- fxn

Lighttpd + Mongrel instructions are available on Mongrel''s main page.

I''m working up Apache instructions for Windows users at the moment.

On 4/20/06, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2006, at 16:19, Alan Francis wrote:
>
> > A bit like putting tomcat instance behind Apache.  Apache would serve
> > the static stuff quickly, but delegate to tomcat as an appserver.
> > With
> > the rails model, I *think* you can either do it tat way, or the other
> > way round.  Instead of the static at the front, delegating back, the
> > dynamic server is at the front, delegating static serves to the asset
> > server (which is, IIRC a config parameter somewhere).
>
> Interesting, could anyone explain how to do this?
>
> > Alternatively, I could be talking total nonsense.
>
> Haaahaha
>
> -- fxn
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060420/da2fe3eb/attachment.html

On 20/04/06, Alan Francis <alancfrancis@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Chris Richards wrote:
> > I know that Mongrel is a web server that hosts rails applications. 
But
> > i don''t understand what part Lighttpd (or Apache) has in the
setup.  I
> > know that you can use Mongrel on its own.  What does Lighttpd improve
> > on?
>
> Some folks might use Lighttpd as an asset server.  This would serve any
> static content (Light is FAST for that).  Mongrel would be used as the
> app server, running the rails app to serve any dynamic content.
The other main benefit of sitting Mongrel behind Lighttpd is that you
can then run multiple instances of Mongrel serving up the same app and
configure Lighttpd to load balance between them.  It looks like Apache
2.2 has support for doing the same thing that I''ll be looking into in
the future.

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy_balancer.html

Paul.

Xavier Noria wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2006, at 16:19, Alan Francis wrote:
> 
>> A bit like putting tomcat instance behind Apache.  Apache would serve
>> the static stuff quickly, but delegate to tomcat as an appserver.   
>> With
>> the rails model, I *think* you can either do it tat way, or the other
>> way round.  Instead of the static at the front, delegating back, the
>> dynamic server is at the front, delegating static serves to the asset
>> server (which is, IIRC a config parameter somewhere).
> 
> Interesting, could anyone explain how to do this?
> 
>> Alternatively, I could be talking total nonsense.
> 
> Haaahaha
> 
> -- fxn
Phew!  not nonsense.

See config/environments/production.rb

# Enable serving of images, stylesheets, and javascripts from an asset 
server
# config.action_controller.asset_host = "http://assets.example.com"

Alan

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Thanks for the response.

So what you''re saying is that Lighttpd or Apache are only good if there
exists static content? Surely they have another purpose?  I mainly write 
webb applications that have very little to no static content.  Are you 
saying that Apache or Lighttpd are useless in that situation,

Thanks,
Chris

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On Apr 20, 2006, at 16:30, Brian Hogan wrote:
> Lighttpd + Mongrel instructions are available on Mongrel''s main
page.
Sure, but the setup we were talking about puts Mongrel in front of  
lighttpd, not behind.

-- fxn

Mongrel is not a full fledged webserver at this point.  Assuming it
follows the Tomcat tradition, it probably never will be.  It is
designed as a rails deployment webserver, not a Apache/Lighty
replacement.

If you need features it does not have, you need to front-end it.

AIUI, it does not currently do: load-balancing, ssl, web-single login
plugins(nor most other standard plug-ins), server static content at
high-speed, etc.

So, come up with a feature list of what you need for a webserver to
do.  Then ask if Mongrel can do them all.  If not, you need to pick a
front-end, or even avoid Mongrel altogether.

Greg

On 4/20/06, Chris Richards <evilgeenius@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks for the response.
>
> So what you''re saying is that Lighttpd or Apache are only good if
there
> exists static content? Surely they have another purpose?  I mainly write
> webb applications that have very little to no static content.  Are you
> saying that Apache or Lighttpd are useless in that situation,
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

--
Greg Freemyer
The Norcross Group
Forensics for the 21st Century

2006/4/20, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com>:
> On Apr 20, 2006, at 16:30, Brian Hogan wrote:
>
> > Lighttpd + Mongrel instructions are available on Mongrel''s
main page.
>
> Sure, but the setup we were talking about puts Mongrel in front of
> lighttpd, not behind.
in front of/behind... well it''s just a matter of point of view,
depending if you''re in server side or client side :-)

    -- Jean-Fran?ois.


--
? la renverse.

Hrm,

So  is Mongrel an alternative to FastCGI? If so how do they compare  
in speed and resource usage to each other?

On Apr 20, 2006, at 4:39 PM, Paul Wright wrote:
> On 20/04/06, Alan Francis <alancfrancis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Chris Richards wrote:
>>> I know that Mongrel is a web server that hosts rails  
>>> applications.  But
>>> i don''t understand what part Lighttpd (or Apache) has in
the
>>> setup.  I
>>> know that you can use Mongrel on its own.  What does Lighttpd  
>>> improve
>>> on?
>>
>> Some folks might use Lighttpd as an asset server.  This would  
>> serve any
>> static content (Light is FAST for that).  Mongrel would be used as  
>> the
>> app server, running the rails app to serve any dynamic content.
>
> The other main benefit of sitting Mongrel behind Lighttpd is that you
> can then run multiple instances of Mongrel serving up the same app and
> configure Lighttpd to load balance between them.  It looks like Apache
> 2.2 has support for doing the same thing that I''ll be looking into
in
> the future.
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy_balancer.html
>
> Paul.
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

If all application requests are forwarded to Mongrel then how does 
load-balancing functionality of Lighttpd affect anything?  is it only 
for load balancing static content?

Chris

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

I really like Mongrel because it''s a lot easier to manage.  Performance
seems to be better than FastCGI in my tests, but I encourage you to do your
own because every situation is different.  Mongrel is the best alternative
if you''re running on Windows like myself.

On 4/20/06, Marston Alfred <marston@marstononline.com>
wrote:
>
> Hrm,
>
> So  is Mongrel an alternative to FastCGI? If so how do they compare
> in speed and resource usage to each other?
>
> On Apr 20, 2006, at 4:39 PM, Paul Wright wrote:
>
> > On 20/04/06, Alan Francis <alancfrancis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Chris Richards wrote:
> >>> I know that Mongrel is a web server that hosts rails
> >>> applications.  But
> >>> i don''t understand what part Lighttpd (or Apache) has
in the
> >>> setup.  I
> >>> know that you can use Mongrel on its own.  What does Lighttpd
> >>> improve
> >>> on?
> >>
> >> Some folks might use Lighttpd as an asset server.  This would
> >> serve any
> >> static content (Light is FAST for that).  Mongrel would be used as
> >> the
> >> app server, running the rails app to serve any dynamic content.
> >
> > The other main benefit of sitting Mongrel behind Lighttpd is that you
> > can then run multiple instances of Mongrel serving up the same app and
> > configure Lighttpd to load balance between them.  It looks like Apache
> > 2.2 has support for doing the same thing that I''ll be looking
into in
> > the future.
> >
> > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy_balancer.html
> >
> > Paul.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails mailing list
> > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060420/50918a97/attachment.html

On Apr 20, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Chris Richards wrote:
> If all application requests are forwarded to Mongrel then how does
> load-balancing functionality of Lighttpd affect anything?  is it only
> for load balancing static content?
Lighttpd is configured to send app requests to several Mongrels.

-- 
-- Tom Mornini

So what are the scaling implications of using Lighty to proxy to Mongrel vs.
Lighty pointing to FastCGI processes? I''m working on an app that I
expect to
scale to at least a couple of app servers, and I''ve just been planning
on
using lighty as a load-balancer between several FastCGI processes running on
each app server. Is Mongrel a faster/more stable/lighter alternative to
this? I''ve seen some of the Mongrel performance tests, and it
didn''t seem to
be much of a step up in performance. But, I haven''t done a very
in-depth
study of it yet (still in design/development mode), so I could easily, and
probably am, incorrect.

Thanks!

Matt

On 4/20/06, Tom Mornini <tmornini@infomania.com>
wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Chris Richards wrote:
>
> > If all application requests are forwarded to Mongrel then how does
> > load-balancing functionality of Lighttpd affect anything?  is it only
> > for load balancing static content?
>
> Lighttpd is configured to send app requests to several Mongrels.
>
> --
> -- Tom Mornini
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060420/ce3d8dc6/attachment.html

On Apr 20, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Matt White wrote:
> So what are the scaling implications of using Lighty to proxy to  
> Mongrel vs. Lighty pointing to FastCGI processes? I''m working on
an
> app that I expect to scale to at least a couple of app servers, and  
> I''ve just been planning on using lighty as a load-balancer between
> several FastCGI processes running on each app server.
Good plan.
> Is Mongrel a faster/more stable/lighter alternative to this?
It''s easier to set up *because* it doesn''t require FCGI
support.
> I''ve seen some of the Mongrel performance tests, and it
didn''t seem
> to be much of a step up in performance.
Depends on when it was tested, and what was being tested. :-)

-- 
-- Tom Mornini

Tom,

I''m no sysadmin (but I''m trying to be one anyway), so sorry
for bugging you
;)

Since Lighty has FastCGI support baked in, in what case would you use
Mongrel instead of just using FCGI with Lighty? Would this primarily be of
use if you were using another webserver like Apache that''s known to
have
problematic FCGI support? In the Apache case, I''m assuming that you
would
use Apache to proxy directly to Mongrel instead of using Lighty as an
intermediary between the two... Is this correct?

If so, I guess I''ll go ahead with my original plan. I''ve been
watching
Mongrel and wondering if it was an advantageous alternative to FCGI...

Thanks!

Matt

On 4/20/06, Tom Mornini <tmornini@infomania.com>
wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Matt White wrote:
>
> > So what are the scaling implications of using Lighty to proxy to
> > Mongrel vs. Lighty pointing to FastCGI processes? I''m working
on an
> > app that I expect to scale to at least a couple of app servers, and
> > I''ve just been planning on using lighty as a load-balancer
between
> > several FastCGI processes running on each app server.
>
> Good plan.
>
> > Is Mongrel a faster/more stable/lighter alternative to this?
>
> It''s easier to set up *because* it doesn''t require FCGI
support.
>
> > I''ve seen some of the Mongrel performance tests, and it
didn''t seem
> > to be much of a step up in performance.
>
> Depends on when it was tested, and what was being tested. :-)
>
> --
> -- Tom Mornini
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060420/d28349f9/attachment.html

Chris Richards wrote:
> If all application requests are forwarded to Mongrel then how does 
> load-balancing functionality of Lighttpd affect anything?  is it only 
> for load balancing static content?
I think you''re a little confused Chris, load-balancing is when you 
spread multiple requests across multiple services that answer that 
request.  Lighttpd load balances mongrel or fast-cgi requests buy 
spreading them evenly among several mongrel or fast-cgi servers. 
Because a single rails process can only process one request at a time, 
having multiple servers means you can answer multiple requests at the 
same time.  Hence, a response time improvement when under a high load of 
requests.

--
Matthew Beale :: mixonic@synitech.com
Resume & Portflio @ http://madhatted.com


-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On 4/20/06 9:00 AM, "Chris Richards" <evilgeenius@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I know that Mongrel is a web server that hosts rails applications.  But
> i don''t understand what part Lighttpd (or Apache) has in the
setup.  I
> know that you can use Mongrel on its own.  What does Lighttpd improve
> on?
> 
Mongrel does the Ruby dynamic requests well and can server static files
pretty fast, so running smallish sites on just Mongrel is a good choice.
But, if you have a large amount of content then your strategy has to be
putting Mongrel behind some other webserver that is faster.

This is the same strategy when doing Tomcat behind Apache.  Apache does some
caching and serves static files like images and such, and then proxies to
Tomcat for anything dynamic.

The interesting addition over Tomcat is that Ruby on Rails provides
excellent page caching and fragment caching.  This means that once your
fronting webserver is configured correctly you can have Rails write the page
rendering results to disk and then your web server will service future
requests from static files.

This kind of caching increases performance tremendously.

In short, Lighttpd or Apache or Litespeed are used to do two things:

1) Serve any static content without talking to Mongrel (including cached
pages).
2) Load balance to a group of Mongrel servers for better parallel response.

Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/

On 4/20/06 11:07 AM, "Marston Alfred"
<marston@marstononline.com> wrote:
> So  is Mongrel an alternative to FastCGI? If so how do they compare
> in speed and resource usage to each other?
> 
So far our experience has been that Mongrel performs as well or better than
FastCGI, is more stable (no memory leaks so far), and is easier to cluster
and manage since it''s HTTP based.

That being said, every application is different so you''ll want to test
both
if you have questions and choose the right solution for your needs.  If you
do choose FastCGI for some reason I''d love to hear your feedback.

Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/

On 4/20/06 12:54 PM, "Matt White" <stockliasteroid@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So what are the scaling implications of using Lighty to proxy to Mongrel
vs.
> Lighty pointing to FastCGI processes? I''m working on an app that I
expect to
> scale to at least a couple of app servers, and I''ve just been
planning on
> using lighty as a load-balancer between several FastCGI processes running
on
> each app server. Is Mongrel a faster/more stable/lighter alternative to
this?
> I''ve seen some of the Mongrel performance tests, and it
didn''t seem to be much
> of a step up in performance. But, I haven''t done a very in-depth
study of it
> yet (still in design/development mode), so I could easily, and probably am,
> incorrect. 
> 
First, there needs to be a distinction between "performance" and
"scalability".  Performance is how fast your current deployment can
answer
requests.  Scalability is how you can increase that performance by adding
resources.  Not lecturing just clarifying so I can focus the discussion.

For performance Mongrel performs as well as FastCGI in my applications, but
you really need to do your own evaluation.  I''d start with Mongrel
since the
setup is easier and then try FastCGI if you don''t get the speed you
need.
Also, use httperf to do your measurements.

One advantage that Mongrel has over FastCGI is that it''s Handlers
framework
means you can move dynamic content which doesn''t use much of the Rails
API
into a Handler that is serviced directly with Mongrel.  This gives you quite
a few options for tuning your application where it''s needed.

For scalability Mongrel wins since it''s just HTTP.  If you try to find
load
balancing options for FastCGI you''re pretty much stuck with plain TCP
balancers.  For HTTP there''s a mountain of experience and tools related
to
scaling out to larger installations.  This means you can start small with
just a single box, a web server, and a few Mongrel servers, and then expand
with various options later when you see the need.

Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/

On 4/20/06 2:07 PM, "Matt White" <stockliasteroid@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Since Lighty has FastCGI support baked in, in what case would you use
Mongrel
> instead of just using FCGI with Lighty? Would this primarily be of use if
you
> were using another webserver like Apache that''s known to have
problematic FCGI
> support? In the Apache case, I''m assuming that you would use
Apache to proxy
> directly to Mongrel instead of using Lighty as an intermediary between the
> two... Is this correct?
> 
If you''re married to lighttpd then there''s one caution related
to Mongrel:
the mod_proxy in lighttpd is broken.  It has problems detecting that a
backend is down.

My more recent recommendation is for people to check out litespeed as an
alternative:

http://weblog.techno-weenie.net/2006/4/11/setting-up-litespeed-with-mongrel

Or, to point lighttpd at *one* port which runs balance and then let balance
talk to all of the Mongrel servers.  This option also works well for Apache.

http://www.inlab.de/balance.html

Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/