Rails - May 2006 - Strange Behavior on Non-Index Pages

If I browse to \myRoRApp, I get the "Welcome aboard" screen.

I''ve done the ruby scripts/generate controller MyTest, and
"Rolling with
Ruby on Rails" tells me I should be able to browse to \myRoRApp\MyTest 
and see an error page, but what I''m actually seeing is a fastcgi config
file!

I have installed fastcgi, but apache can''t "see" the module
so I comment
that LoadModule line out of http.conf. Maybe it''s still affecting the 
RoR machinery...?

How do I get this working with fastcgi or without fastcgi? :)

Thanks!

If you commented out the LoadModule for fastcgi, that''s likely to be a 
failure point. The order of lines in the config files is important, so 
make sure you LoadModule fastcgi stuff before you try and make use of 
the module.

But seriously, why not use Lighttpd? FCGI rails configuration is a snap, 
and its faster.

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

Bryan Duxbury wrote:
>If you commented out the LoadModule for fastcgi, that''s likely to
be a
>failure point. The order of lines in the config files is important, so 
>make sure you LoadModule fastcgi stuff before you try and make use of 
>the module.
>
>But seriously, why not use Lighttpd? FCGI rails configuration is a snap, 
>and its faster.
>  
>
I finally got all remnants of FastCGI out of the system and
everything''s
working fine, now. Except... IT''S AMAZINGLY SLOOOOOOW... :)

So, now I guess I''ll try Lighttpd. I''m using Windows 2000.
Will that be
a problem?

Thanks!!!

Actually, yes. Lighttpd''s FastCGI library is not compiled for Windows, 
as I understand it. Why do you want to deploy on a Windows box? I 
develop on Win2k under Webrick, but I deploy on Debian.

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

Bryan Duxbury wrote:
>Actually, yes. Lighttpd''s FastCGI library is not compiled for
Windows,
>as I understand it. Why do you want to deploy on a Windows box? I 
>develop on Win2k under Webrick, but I deploy on Debian.
>  
>
I''m only dev''ing under Windows. I''ll probably deploy
on a Linux/BSD box
(haven''t chosen my provider yet). Will I get better performance on
Win2K
using Webrick?

On 5/11/06, c.k.lester <ck@cklester.com> wrote:
> Bryan Duxbury wrote:
>
> I''m only dev''ing under Windows. I''ll probably
deploy on a Linux/BSD box
> (haven''t chosen my provider yet). Will I get better performance on
Win2K
> using Webrick?
>
WEBrick isn''t a performance server, but it''s very very easy to
get up
and running, no configuration needed, at all. It never caches stuff
either, so it''s perfect for development. No real need to set up
anything more complicated for development (most of the time at least),
and if you want to performance test your application you should
probably do so on a machine as identical to the deployment environment
as possible to get some real numbers.

My two cents. :)
Mathias.

Mathias Wittlock wrote:
> On 5/11/06, c.k.lester <rails@cklester.com> wrote:
>
>> I''m only dev''ing under Windows. I''ll
probably deploy on a Linux/BSD box
>> (haven''t chosen my provider yet). Will I get better
performance on Win2K
>> using Webrick?
>>
> WEBrick isn''t a performance server, but it''s very very
easy to get up
> and running, no configuration needed, at all.
I''ve got Apache up and running sans FastCGI (or Lighttpd). Will Webrick
have equal or better performance than my current configuration (which is 
dog-awful slow)?
> It never caches stuff either, so it''s perfect for development.
Forgive the newbality, and just curious, but what makes a non-caching 
server perfect for development?

On 5/11/06, c.k.lester <rails@cklester.com> wrote:
> Mathias Wittlock wrote:
> > WEBrick isn''t a performance server, but it''s very
very easy to get up
> > and running, no configuration needed, at all.
>
> I''ve got Apache up and running sans FastCGI (or Lighttpd). Will
Webrick
> have equal or better performance than my current configuration (which is
> dog-awful slow)?
The slowness sounds to me as if something isn''t working as it should,
Apache with FastCGI should be working fairly quick. (have you updated
the .htaccess to use the dispatch.fcgi file instead of the
dispatch.cgi one?) WEBrick is the slowest server you could pick and
probably won''t handle traffic too well if you ran it on a live system,
but in my experience it''s pretty snappy for the single requests I do
while developing (I got no big projects yet, but it always gives me a
result well under a second so far).
> > It never caches stuff either, so it''s perfect for
development.
>
> Forgive the newbality, and just curious, but what makes a non-caching
> server perfect for development?
If the server would cache your stuff you might not see the effects of
your changes at first refresh, which would be kinda annoying as you
change your code, wouldn''t it? :)

I''m no expert either, so I might get some details wrong, but overall
if you want a webserver that''s easy to get running, try WEBrick and
upgrade to something with better performance once you suffer from
WEBrick''s lack of performance. :) It''s not a problem until
it''s a
problem. ;)

Mathias.

c.k.lester wrote:
> Mathias Wittlock wrote:
> 
>> On 5/11/06, c.k.lester <rails@cklester.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> WEBrick isn''t a performance server, but it''s very
very easy to get up
>> and running, no configuration needed, at all.
> 
> 
> I''ve got Apache up and running sans FastCGI (or Lighttpd). Will
Webrick
> have equal or better performance than my current configuration (which is 
> dog-awful slow)?
It sounds to me like you''ve got it running in CGI mode. 
That''s known to
be the slowest method around.  WEBrick will be faster.
>> It never caches stuff either, so it''s perfect for development.
> 
> Forgive the newbality, and just curious, but what makes a non-caching 
> server perfect for development?
One less confounding factor to confuse things.

-- 
Alex

Mathias Wittlock wrote:
> On 5/11/06, c.k.lester <rails@cklester.com> wrote:
>
>> I''ve got Apache up and running sans FastCGI (or Lighttpd).
Will Webrick
>> have equal or better performance than my current configuration (which
is
>> dog-awful slow)?
>
> The slowness sounds to me as if something isn''t working as it
should,
> Apache with FastCGI should be working fairly quick. (have you updated
> the .htaccess to use the dispatch.fcgi file instead of the
> dispatch.cgi one?)
Oh, well there''s the misunderstanding... I don''t have FastCGI
working. I
installed it and tried to get it to work, but apache griped on start-up 
about not being able to find the module mod_fastcgi.dll... when I know 
darn well it''s right there!!! :)

So, with FastCGI off, Apache is slow.
> [Webrick is] pretty snappy for the single requests I do
> while developing (I got no big projects yet, but it always gives me a
> result well under a second so far).
Well, that''s a bit faster than Apache on my system, but you''re
probably
dev''ing on a dual-core 64-bit chip, right?! :P
> If the server would cache your stuff you might not see the effects of
> your changes at first refresh, which would be kinda annoying as you
> change your code, wouldn''t it? :)
Yep. :)

Thanks! :)

The whole idea of WEBrick is that it is fast for development. By no 
means should you deploy with it.

Apache or Lighttpd is not for development. As you said, how you deploy 
will be largely determined by your hosting provider.

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

Alex Young wrote:
> It sounds to me like you''ve got it running in CGI mode. 
That''s known
> to be the slowest method around. WEBrick will be faster.
Bryan Duxbury wrote:
>The whole idea of WEBrick is that it is fast for development. By no 
>means should you deploy with it.
>
Then I guess I should run with WEBrick...

Thanks for the help, people!

On 5/11/06, c.k.lester <ck@cklester.com> wrote:
> Well, that''s a bit faster than Apache on my system, but
you''re probably
> dev''ing on a dual-core 64-bit chip, right?! :P
How did you know? :D *runs spyware scanner* ;)

Good luck with your continued development. ;)

Mathias.