Hi! I''ve understood that the mod_ruby apache module is not recommended for running Ruby on Rails applications. But I haven''t found any information as to why that is so. Please enlighten me. And could you point me to the (currently) prefered production environment. (That can handle both RoR and PHP sites). Thank you and best regards Hans-Eric Gr?nlund -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
The "prefered" way is to run lighty with fast_cgi support. I currently run Apache2 with fcgi and have no problems. Charlie Bowman www.recentrambles.com On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 15:27 +0200, Hans-Eric Gr?nlund wrote:> Hi! > > I''ve understood that the mod_ruby apache module is not recommended for > running Ruby on Rails applications. But I haven''t found any information > as to why that is so. Please enlighten me. And could you point me to the > (currently) prefered production environment. (That can handle both RoR > and PHP sites). > > Thank you and best regards > > Hans-Eric Gr?nlund >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060427/50394414/attachment.html
The reason mod_ruby isn''t recommended is that it is very, very, very, very slow. Simple as that.> Hi! > I''ve understood that the mod_ruby apache module is not recommended for running Ruby on Rails applications. But I haven''t found any information as to why that is so. Please enlighten me. And could you point me to the (currently) prefered production environment. (That can handle both RoR and PHP sites). > Thank you and best regards > Hans-Eric Gr?nlund > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060427/d18a4ee7/attachment-0001.html
On Apr 27, 2006, at 6:27 AM, Hans-Eric Gr?nlund wrote:> Hi! > > I''ve understood that the mod_ruby apache module is not recommended for > running Ruby on Rails applications. But I haven''t found any > information > as to why that is so. Please enlighten me. And could you point me > to the > (currently) prefered production environment. (That can handle both RoR > and PHP sites). > > Thank you and best regards > > Hans-Eric Gr?nlund > > --With mod_ruby you can only run one rails app in one apache install. Because mod_ruby embeds a ruby interpreter inside of the apache process. So more then one rails app and they would step on each other. But mod_ruby is not that bad for web sites built with ruby but not rails. I have a few sites where I can use .rhtml and .rb files and they are executed by apache as ruby files. FOr sopme dead simple sites this is a nice lighweight way to go. But for rails apps mod_ruby leaves a lot to be desired. Cheers- -Ezra
Charlie Bowman wrote:> The "prefered" way is to run lighty with fast_cgi support. I currently > run Apache2 with fcgi and have no problems.ligthy, is that lighttp? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On 4/27/06, Hans-Eric Gr?nlund <info@hegsoft.com> wrote:> Charlie Bowman wrote: > > The "prefered" way is to run lighty with fast_cgi support. I currently > > run Apache2 with fcgi and have no problems. > > ligthy, is that lighttp?Yes. It''s referred to as "Lighty" on the main site. http://www.lighttpd.net/
On Apr 27, 2006, at 6:49 AM, Tom Armitage wrote:>> Hi! I''ve understood that the mod_ruby apache module is not >> recommended for running Ruby on Rails applications. But I haven''t >> found any information as to why that is so. Please enlighten me. >> And could you point me to the (currently) prefered production >> environment. (That can handle both RoR and PHP sites). > > The reason mod_ruby isn''t recommended is that it is very, very, > very, very slow. Simple as that.No, it isn''t. Maybe when Rails runs atop it, but not in general. -- Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant http://trackmap.robotcoop.com