Rails - Jun 2006 - Performance (cough cough) Poor: Instant Rails

Hi,

In short, RoR is brand spanking new to me, I set up Instant Rails (if 
you can call copying files "setup") and made my own simple app via 
scaffold. One table, 11 cols, 100 rows. All is well, except when I view 
the data, it takes 5-10 seconds to show the page, 5-10 more seconds to 
get the edit page and so on. Going back to the previous page is no 
faster (via previous link).

I''m running InstantRails 1.3a on XP SP2, average to aging PC: P4 
2.66/1GB, nothing else going on, just Firefox. I''ve heard it''s
slow, but
this would be prefaced as "painfully". So, first, is this within the 
expected window of results, ie normal. Next, any magic parameter 
settings (fast=true) or other guidelines? And third, how much of a 
performance difference is there if one switches to the oft-mentioned 
Mongrel- just broad strokes, I know it''s all in the details.

Any help would be most appreciated. Trying to get my business partner 
excited about the whole RoR thing and slow-as-molasses is a buzz kill.

-Greg

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

I think your issue might be windows ;-)

I''ve got a "server" at the house which hosts 4 domains --
it''s a 4yr old
AMD 1.2GHz box with 512MB ram running a rails app, along with 
websites, webmail for folks and other sundries.  It''s pretty
acceptable.
The main limiting factor is the pipe...  (no, it''s not using windows)

Although admittedly, I did try instant rails briefly.  It was pretty slow, 
I thought.  Easy to install, but slow.

Have you considered cygwin or another option?

Matt

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Greg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In short, RoR is brand spanking new to me, I set up Instant Rails (if
> you can call copying files "setup") and made my own simple app
via
> scaffold. One table, 11 cols, 100 rows. All is well, except when I view
> the data, it takes 5-10 seconds to show the page, 5-10 more seconds to
> get the edit page and so on. Going back to the previous page is no
> faster (via previous link).
>
> I''m running InstantRails 1.3a on XP SP2, average to aging PC: P4
> 2.66/1GB, nothing else going on, just Firefox. I''ve heard
it''s slow, but
> this would be prefaced as "painfully". So, first, is this within
the
> expected window of results, ie normal. Next, any magic parameter
> settings (fast=true) or other guidelines? And third, how much of a
> performance difference is there if one switches to the oft-mentioned
> Mongrel- just broad strokes, I know it''s all in the details.
>
> Any help would be most appreciated. Trying to get my business partner
> excited about the whole RoR thing and slow-as-molasses is a buzz kill.
>
> -Greg
>
> -- 
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

Matthew Williams wrote:
> I think your issue might be windows ;-)
> 
> I''ve got a "server" at the house which hosts 4 domains
-- it''s a 4yr old
> AMD 1.2GHz box with 512MB ram running a rails app, along with
> websites, webmail for folks and other sundries.  It''s pretty
acceptable.
> The main limiting factor is the pipe...  (no, it''s not using
windows)
> 
> Although admittedly, I did try instant rails briefly.  It was pretty 
> slow,
> I thought.  Easy to install, but slow.
> 
> Have you considered cygwin or another option?
> 
> Matt
Thanks for the quick post. I''m really early into this and my RoR 
experience includes passing by that funny looking guy on the book cover 
at Barnes and Noble a few times, opening it once, a late night download 
(last night), a quick sing-a-long with the cookbook tutorial (so easy 
when someone else does all the thinking) and then zzzzzzz, both me and 
my app.

Our biz is photography and this is just proof of concept stuff- anything 
real will be hosted. Just trying to see if this slowpoke performance is 
a result of the Instant setup, Webrick or some simple gotcha that I can 
fix- are 5 sec page loads for non-concurrent access average?



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

On 6/20/06, Greg <greg_dba@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In short, RoR is brand spanking new to me, I set up Instant Rails (if
> you can call copying files "setup") and made my own simple app
via
> scaffold. One table, 11 cols, 100 rows. All is well, except when I view
> the data, it takes 5-10 seconds to show the page, 5-10 more seconds to
> get the edit page and so on. Going back to the previous page is no
> faster (via previous link).
>
> I''m running InstantRails 1.3a on XP SP2, average to aging PC: P4
> 2.66/1GB, nothing else going on, just Firefox. I''ve heard
it''s slow, but
> this would be prefaced as "painfully". So, first, is this within
the
> expected window of results, ie normal. Next, any magic parameter
> settings (fast=true) or other guidelines? And third, how much of a
> performance difference is there if one switches to the oft-mentioned
> Mongrel- just broad strokes, I know it''s all in the details.
>
> Any help would be most appreciated. Trying to get my business partner
> excited about the whole RoR thing and slow-as-molasses is a buzz kill.

Are you serving your Rails app with WEBrick or Apache? Are you running in
production mode (development mode will be slow)?

Curt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060620/43348d70/attachment.html

Greg wrote:
> Matthew Williams wrote:
>   
>> I think your issue might be windows ;-)
>>
>> I''ve got a "server" at the house which hosts 4
domains -- it''s a 4yr old
>> AMD 1.2GHz box with 512MB ram running a rails app, along with
>> websites, webmail for folks and other sundries.  It''s pretty
acceptable.
>> The main limiting factor is the pipe...  (no, it''s not using
windows)
>>
>> Although admittedly, I did try instant rails briefly.  It was pretty 
>> slow,
>> I thought.  Easy to install, but slow.
>>
>> Have you considered cygwin or another option?
>>
>> Matt
>>     
>
> Thanks for the quick post. I''m really early into this and my RoR 
> experience includes passing by that funny looking guy on the book cover 
> at Barnes and Noble a few times, opening it once, a late night download 
> (last night), a quick sing-a-long with the cookbook tutorial (so easy 
> when someone else does all the thinking) and then zzzzzzz, both me and 
> my app.
>
> Our biz is photography and this is just proof of concept stuff- anything 
> real will be hosted. Just trying to see if this slowpoke performance is 
> a result of the Instant setup, Webrick or some simple gotcha that I can 
> fix- are 5 sec page loads for non-concurrent access average?
>
>   
Did you use Webrick?  My experience was that Webrick is quite fast... 
though on Instant Rails with Apache, it did take quite a while.. I got 
bored while waiting for pages to reload.. :-S

It was partly my fault for mot setting up FastCGI, etc...
Cheers
mohit.

Greg wrote:
> Matthew Williams wrote:
>> I think your issue might be windows ;-)
>> 
>> I''ve got a "server" at the house which hosts 4
domains -- it''s a 4yr old
>> AMD 1.2GHz box with 512MB ram running a rails app, along with
>> websites, webmail for folks and other sundries.  It''s pretty
acceptable.
>> The main limiting factor is the pipe...  (no, it''s not using
windows)
>> 
>> Although admittedly, I did try instant rails briefly.  It was pretty 
>> slow,
>> I thought.  Easy to install, but slow.
>> 
>> Have you considered cygwin or another option?
>> 
>> Matt
> 
> Thanks for the quick post. I''m really early into this and my RoR 
> experience includes passing by that funny looking guy on the book cover 
> at Barnes and Noble a few times, opening it once, a late night download 
> (last night), a quick sing-a-long with the cookbook tutorial (so easy 
> when someone else does all the thinking) and then zzzzzzz, both me and 
> my app.
> 
> Our biz is photography and this is just proof of concept stuff- anything 
> real will be hosted. Just trying to see if this slowpoke performance is 
> a result of the Instant setup, Webrick or some simple gotcha that I can 
> fix- are 5 sec page loads for non-concurrent access average?

I tried InstantRails once back when it was first released and I don''t 
remember too much about it so I can''t say if it is or isn''t
the problem.
But, I can attest to the fact that webrick can be slow. Currently, on my 
Windows box, I''m using RadRails (http://www.radrails.org/) and Mongrel 
(http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/) for dev work. I noticed an instant speed 
improvement with Mongrel and I like being able to run it as a native 
Windows service (not that you can''t with webrick, I just don''t
know
how).

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

Greg wrote:
> Matthew Williams wrote:
>   
>> I think your issue might be windows ;-)
>>
>> I''ve got a "server" at the house which hosts 4
domains -- it''s a 4yr old
>> AMD 1.2GHz box with 512MB ram running a rails app, along with
>> websites, webmail for folks and other sundries.  It''s pretty
acceptable.
>> The main limiting factor is the pipe...  (no, it''s not using
windows)
>>
>> Although admittedly, I did try instant rails briefly.  It was pretty 
>> slow,
>> I thought.  Easy to install, but slow.
>>
>> Have you considered cygwin or another option?
>>
>> Matt
>>     
>
> Thanks for the quick post. I''m really early into this and my RoR 
> experience includes passing by that funny looking guy on the book cover 
> at Barnes and Noble a few times, opening it once, a late night download 
> (last night), a quick sing-a-long with the cookbook tutorial (so easy 
> when someone else does all the thinking) and then zzzzzzz, both me and 
> my app.
>
> Our biz is photography and this is just proof of concept stuff- anything 
> real will be hosted. Just trying to see if this slowpoke performance is 
> a result of the Instant setup, Webrick or some simple gotcha that I can 
> fix- are 5 sec page loads for non-concurrent access average?
>
>
>
>   
If you are running in development mode then every requests reloads 
everything(basically).  Check how performance is with your environment 
set to production.  I would also suggest Mongrel over Webrick.  Check 
out http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/ (down for a bit right now but should 
be back up soon).  It works on windows and for me has been much faster 
than Webrick.

Matthew Margolis
blog.mattmargolis.net

On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 20:04 +0200, Greg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In short, RoR is brand spanking new to me, I set up Instant Rails (if 
> you can call copying files "setup") and made my own simple app
via
> scaffold. One table, 11 cols, 100 rows. All is well, except when I view 
> the data, it takes 5-10 seconds to show the page, 5-10 more seconds to 
> get the edit page and so on. Going back to the previous page is no 
> faster (via previous link).
> 
Rails has "modes" or "environments" named after what you are
doing:
development, production, test.  By default Rails runs in development
mode.  When you do unit testing it runs in test mode.  And when you
deploy your application you *have* to tell rails to be in production
mode.

Development mode is slower because Rails reloads all the world every
time you hit a page.  Think of this as faster than compiling your whole
java/.net application, restarting your server, checking the page, edit,
repeat cycle.

To speed things up you put your application into production mode.  This
is done with -e production when you use Mongrel.
> I''m running InstantRails 1.3a on XP SP2, average to aging PC: P4 
> 2.66/1GB, nothing else going on, just Firefox. I''ve heard
it''s slow, but
> this would be prefaced as "painfully". So, first, is this within
the
> expected window of results, ie normal. Next, any magic parameter 
> settings (fast=true) or other guidelines? And third, how much of a 
> performance difference is there if one switches to the oft-mentioned 
> Mongrel- just broad strokes, I know it''s all in the details.
> 
Ruby in general on Windows is slow.  Simply switching operating systems
to Linux or FreeBSD (and turning off pthreads) gives you a massive
performance boost.

Mongrel is generally faster for development work since it is able to do
fast static file serving which helps when you have to hit reload a lot.
Normally though, people run Mongrel behind litespeed, lighttpd, or
apache to get the fastest file serving possible, and then a small
cluster of mongrel servers to get good ruby/rails performance.

In short, yes switching to Mongrel will speed things up.  I believe
instant rails comes with an older version of Mongrel, but if you''re
going to get serious you might as well install it all from scratch so
you know how to deploy everything.  It''s not too hard on windows.  

You should also read up on fragment caching and page caching as two
simple ways to give your pages snap without going insane.


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

Mongrel is also included with Instant Rails, but not yet integrated (i.e.
you have to start up Mongrel manually). We plan to replace SCGI in Instant
Rails with Mongrel.

Curt


On 6/20/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 20:04 +0200, Greg wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In short, RoR is brand spanking new to me, I set up Instant Rails (if
> > you can call copying files "setup") and made my own simple
app via
> > scaffold. One table, 11 cols, 100 rows. All is well, except when I
view
> > the data, it takes 5-10 seconds to show the page, 5-10 more seconds to
> > get the edit page and so on. Going back to the previous page is no
> > faster (via previous link).
> >
> Rails has "modes" or "environments" named after what
you are doing:
> development, production, test.  By default Rails runs in development
> mode.  When you do unit testing it runs in test mode.  And when you
> deploy your application you *have* to tell rails to be in production
> mode.
>
> Development mode is slower because Rails reloads all the world every
> time you hit a page.  Think of this as faster than compiling your whole
> java/.net application, restarting your server, checking the page, edit,
> repeat cycle.
>
> To speed things up you put your application into production mode.  This
> is done with -e production when you use Mongrel.
>
> > I''m running InstantRails 1.3a on XP SP2, average to aging PC:
P4
> > 2.66/1GB, nothing else going on, just Firefox. I''ve heard
it''s slow, but
> > this would be prefaced as "painfully". So, first, is this
within the
> > expected window of results, ie normal. Next, any magic parameter
> > settings (fast=true) or other guidelines? And third, how much of a
> > performance difference is there if one switches to the oft-mentioned
> > Mongrel- just broad strokes, I know it''s all in the details.
> >
> Ruby in general on Windows is slow.  Simply switching operating systems
> to Linux or FreeBSD (and turning off pthreads) gives you a massive
> performance boost.
>
> Mongrel is generally faster for development work since it is able to do
> fast static file serving which helps when you have to hit reload a lot.
> Normally though, people run Mongrel behind litespeed, lighttpd, or
> apache to get the fastest file serving possible, and then a small
> cluster of mongrel servers to get good ruby/rails performance.
>
> In short, yes switching to Mongrel will speed things up.  I believe
> instant rails comes with an older version of Mongrel, but if
you''re
> going to get serious you might as well install it all from scratch so
> you know how to deploy everything.  It''s not too hard on windows.
>
> You should also read up on fragment caching and page caching as two
> simple ways to give your pages snap without going insane.
>
>
> --
> Zed A. Shaw
> http://www.zedshaw.com/
> http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060620/e483ef11/attachment.html

If you use InstantRails out of the box, it s very slow because it s 
apache + CGI  so you are reloading the rails framework for each request. 
If you switch to webrick you will see a big improvement and if you 
switch to mongrel you will see a bigger improvement.

When I started with InstantRails I had the same problem ... so I 
switched to mongrel and now it works like a charm (thanks, Zed and co 
!!!!)

Thomas.

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

Please do not send unsolicited mail to wku.edu email accounts.  If you feel that
your message was rejected in error please contact 270-745-7000

We have eclipsed the 5 second barrier!!! {golf clap}

Thanks for all the posts, exactly what I was looking for/needed.
I tried SCGI, but saw no difference and was still unable to break the 
barrier. Switching to prod mode turned the trick. Dev mode makes sense- 
actually see your changes, what a concept. Going forward, will install 
Mongrel and give it a whirl with some in house stuff. Checked out 
RadRails, downloading as we speak...

And Zed, if I did all of that stuff, when would I ever take any 
pictures? Our sandbox is a tiny one, any photographer site with a *Flash 
slideshow* is above the median, if we can add some of the RoR and Ajax 
tricks/functionality to ours, we''ll be so far up the curve,
we''ll have
to hold onto the railing, awash in vertigo. We''ll leave the
performance,
deployment and maintenance stuff to right brainers who are actually good 
at it. We''re not a high volume site or looking to package this up- we 
just want a rich, rich customer experience and this platform is sooo 
promising. {goosebumps}


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

Hey Curt, I look forward to the release.

-Conrad

On 6/20/06, Curt Hibbs <ml.chibbs@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Mongrel is also included with Instant Rails, but not yet integrated (i.e.
> you have to start up Mongrel manually). We plan to replace SCGI in Instant
> Rails with Mongrel.
>
> Curt
>
>
> On 6/20/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 20:04 +0200, Greg wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > In short, RoR is brand spanking new to me, I set up Instant Rails
(if
> > > you can call copying files "setup") and made my own
simple app via
> > > scaffold. One table, 11 cols, 100 rows. All is well, except when
I
> > view
> > > the data, it takes 5-10 seconds to show the page, 5-10 more
seconds to
> >
> > > get the edit page and so on. Going back to the previous page is
no
> > > faster (via previous link).
> > >
> > Rails has "modes" or "environments" named after
what you are doing:
> > development, production, test.  By default Rails runs in development
> > mode.  When you do unit testing it runs in test mode.  And when you
> > deploy your application you *have* to tell rails to be in production
> > mode.
> >
> > Development mode is slower because Rails reloads all the world every
> > time you hit a page.  Think of this as faster than compiling your
whole
> > java/.net application, restarting your server, checking the page,
edit,
> > repeat cycle.
> >
> > To speed things up you put your application into production mode. 
This
> > is done with -e production when you use Mongrel.
> >
> > > I''m running InstantRails 1.3a on XP SP2, average to
aging PC: P4
> > > 2.66/1GB, nothing else going on, just Firefox. I''ve
heard it''s slow,
> > but
> > > this would be prefaced as "painfully". So, first, is
this within the
> > > expected window of results, ie normal. Next, any magic parameter
> > > settings (fast=true) or other guidelines? And third, how much of
a
> > > performance difference is there if one switches to the
oft-mentioned
> > > Mongrel- just broad strokes, I know it''s all in the
details.
> > >
> > Ruby in general on Windows is slow.  Simply switching operating
systems
> > to Linux or FreeBSD (and turning off pthreads) gives you a massive
> > performance boost.
> >
> > Mongrel is generally faster for development work since it is able to
do
> > fast static file serving which helps when you have to hit reload a
lot.
> > Normally though, people run Mongrel behind litespeed, lighttpd, or
> > apache to get the fastest file serving possible, and then a small
> > cluster of mongrel servers to get good ruby/rails performance.
> >
> > In short, yes switching to Mongrel will speed things up.  I believe
> > instant rails comes with an older version of Mongrel, but if
you''re
> > going to get serious you might as well install it all from scratch so
> > you know how to deploy everything.  It''s not too hard on
windows.
> >
> > You should also read up on fragment caching and page caching as two
> > simple ways to give your pages snap without going insane.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Zed A. Shaw
> > http://www.zedshaw.com/
> > http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20060620/8d04e77c/attachment-0001.html

On 6/20/06, thomas <thomas_mahier@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> If you use InstantRails out of the box, it s very slow because it s
> apache + CGI  so you are reloading the rails framework for each request.
> If you switch to webrick you will see a big improvement and if you
> switch to mongrel you will see a bigger improvement.
>
> When I started with InstantRails I had the same problem ... so I
> switched to mongrel and now it works like a charm (thanks, Zed and co
> !!!!)

No, no, no...  Instant Rails  does *not* use CGI, it uses SCGI  which has
about the same performance as FastCGI but is way simpler.

Are you sure you weren''t running in development mode?  In any case,
Mongrel
is a better solution tha SCGI (you can use Mongrel with or without Apache)
-- that''s why we are switching Instant Rails to Mongrel.

Curt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060620/fcdaf680/attachment.html

> ...In any case, Mongrel is a better solution tha SCGI (you can use Mongrel
with >or without Apache that''s why we are switching Instant Rails to
Mongrel.
> 
> Curt
When might we see the switchover?


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

On 6/20/06, Greg <greg_dba@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In short, RoR is brand spanking new to me, I set up Instant Rails (if
> you can call copying files "setup") and made my own simple app
via
> scaffold. One table, 11 cols, 100 rows. All is well, except when I view
> the data, it takes 5-10 seconds to show the page, 5-10 more seconds to
> get the edit page and so on. Going back to the previous page is no
> faster (via previous link).
As a lot of people in this thread are blaming Windows, Webrick,
development mode or whatever, I thought I''d provide a counter example.

On my XP box at home i run (non-instant) Ruby on Rails with Webrick in
development mode, typically seeing response times of one sec or less.

Even if I''d stick with BSD (or perhaps Linux) for deployment, Webrick
on Windows _certainly_ is a viable development platform for RoR.

Isak

On 6/20/06, Greg <greg_dba@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...In any case, Mongrel is a better solution tha SCGI (you can use
> Mongrel with >or without Apache that''s why we are switching
Instant Rails to
> Mongrel.
> >
> > Curt
>
> When might we see the switchover?

Probably sometime over this summer. There will be at least one more release
of Instant Rails 1.x (the windows-only version) done in parallel wit the
work on Instant Rails 2 (the crosss platform version).

Curt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060621/b332e283/attachment-0001.html

I develop on Windows using non-instant stuff.  I downloaded the 1.8.4 
ruby binary and then I downloaded and installed the binaries for 
Postgresql and MySql.  I then downloaded the binary interface from 
rails-to-postgresql.

I also downloaded and installed rails just as a gem using the ruby
''gem''
command.

It works fine for development with webrick.  It''s not fast, especially 
for the very first page load.  I run on a Dell Pentium M laptop running 
at 1.7 gigahertz on half a gig of ram.  But it''s not slow. 
It''s fine.
I''m sure I could develop with dozens of tables and a thousand rows.

The version of MySQL that comes with Instant Rails should be fine, so 
it''s probably not the database.  You can check that with a simple sql 
statement.  Since you probably don''t know sql, here''s how. 
Look in
config\database.yml to see the name of your database, call it 
whatever_development, and your development password.  Use the mysql 
command as follows to find your table name and run the
''select''
statement that dumps everything out.  The response time should be 
telling:
>mysql -u root -p -D whatever_development
Enter password: *******
Welcome  ...  blah blah blah

mysql> show tables;
+--------------------------------+
| Tables_in_whatever_development |
+--------------------------------+
| yourtablename                  |
| schema_info                    |
+--------------------------------+
2 rows in set (0.05 sec)

mysql> select * from yourtablename;
  (output shows here -- last line is elapsed time)

mysql> quit


Warren

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

It seems quite strange to me that it''s so slow. I know others have
given suggestions, and I''m sure they''ll help, but when I was
running
InstantRails on Windows, it only took a second or two to load each
page. The reason I changed was because commands such as
script/generate were too slow. Now I''m using WEBrick (with Ruby/Rails
installed manually), and haven''t noticed a difference in loading
times.
-Nathan

On 20/06/06, Greg <greg_dba@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In short, RoR is brand spanking new to me, I set up Instant Rails (if
> you can call copying files "setup") and made my own simple app
via
> scaffold. One table, 11 cols, 100 rows. All is well, except when I view
> the data, it takes 5-10 seconds to show the page, 5-10 more seconds to
> get the edit page and so on. Going back to the previous page is no
> faster (via previous link).
>
> I''m running InstantRails 1.3a on XP SP2, average to aging PC: P4
> 2.66/1GB, nothing else going on, just Firefox. I''ve heard
it''s slow, but
> this would be prefaced as "painfully". So, first, is this within
the
> expected window of results, ie normal. Next, any magic parameter
> settings (fast=true) or other guidelines? And third, how much of a
> performance difference is there if one switches to the oft-mentioned
> Mongrel- just broad strokes, I know it''s all in the details.
>
> Any help would be most appreciated. Trying to get my business partner
> excited about the whole RoR thing and slow-as-molasses is a buzz kill.
>
> -Greg
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

Curt Hibbs wrote:
> No, no, no...  Instant Rails  does *not* use CGI, it uses SCGI  which
> has about the same performance as FastCGI but is way simpler.
>  
> Are you sure you weren''t running in development mode?  In any
case,
> Mongrel is a better solution tha SCGI (you can use Mongrel with or
> without Apache) -- that''s why we are switching Instant Rails to
Mongrel.
That brings up an interesting (to me, anyhow) question. Suppose I
download the latest Instant Rails and install it. This gives me a recent
Ruby and Rails, Apache and MySQL. I think PHP is also there but I''m not
sure. How do I go about maintaining the "platform"? Suppose, for
example, I want to switch from MySQL to PostgreSQL or SQL Server or
SQLite? How do I upgrade Apache or MySQL? Ruby? Rails? How do I add
non-Rails applications or even non-Ruby applications?

What brought all this on is that Instant Rails looks a lot like another
"one-click web platform" package I have on my Windows system.
It''s based
on EasyPHP and implements the Moodle course management system
(http://moodle.org). I''d like to have *one* platform, not two.
Obviously, the *application* maintenance will be different, but I''d
like
to be able to standardize the platform components -- Ruby and PHP
interpreters, web servers and databases.

Of course, I could always switch to .NET ...

<ducking>
>  
> Curt
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>   
-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

http://linuxcapacityplanning.com

Greg wrote:
> We''ll leave the performance, 
> deployment and maintenance stuff to right brainers who are actually good 
> at it.
Uh ... shouldn''t that be "left-brainers?" That''s a
myth, by the way --
the whole left-brain/right-brain thing. That originated from studies of
people who had their left and right brains separated surgically. In most
of us "normal" folks, the two hemispheres are in constant seamless
communication.
>  We''re not a high volume site or looking to package this up- we 
> just want a rich, rich customer experience and this platform is sooo 
> promising. {goosebumps}
>   
Speaking of rich customer experience (like Ajax), what sort of network
bandwidth are you assuming your rich customers have? I live about four
miles from one of the largest Intel installations on the planet in
Washington County, Oregon, and just got broadband a year ago. :)

Poor network bandwidth can kill a "rich Internet experience" faster
than
an overloaded server. You can always throw hardware at your own servers,
but you can''t buy more PC memory, a faster PC or higher bandwidth for
your customers. :)

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

http://linuxcapacityplanning.com

On 6/21/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net>
wrote:
>
> What brought all this on is that Instant Rails looks a lot like another
> "one-click web platform" package I have on my Windows system.
It''s based
> on EasyPHP and implements the Moodle course management system
> (http://moodle.org). I''d like to have *one* platform, not two.
> Obviously, the *application* maintenance will be different, but
I''d like
> to be able to standardize the platform components -- Ruby and PHP
> interpreters, web servers and databases.

There''s a reason it looks like EasyPHP -- Instant Rails 1.x is a fork
of
EasyPHP! However, that is temporary as Instant Rails 2 will be based on
XAMPP

All-in-one packages like Instant Rails, Locomotive, and EasyPHP are
fantastic time savers if they meet you needs. They are not designed to be
"user upgradable". If that is what you need, then you should really do
your
own custom installation of the  individual components.

Curt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060621/15c4cfa0/attachment.html

After RadRails, life is good. No delay, click->display, it''s that
fast,
if only I could click faster, I''d be even more productive. The DB was 
never the issue- 100 rows only, simple cols.

[Ed] As for the left/brain right/brain stuff, them''s just jokes. What I
mean is that the thrill is in figuring it out, making it work, not 
falling in love and having to sleep with it every night. We''ve no
desire
to host our own site nor will we be rolling this out as a service. Our 
business is photography. And the rich customer experience is not by 
definition media intensive- can''t stand those Flash sites
(let''s see if
you can guess what object to click now?). We recently did some testing 
of a Flash photo slideshow and found even DSL clients rated their wait 
time at 5-10s for 1.4MB at a 50% preload. We know we need to keep it 
skinny.

While we can''t functionally design for dialup, in our area, broadband
is
plentiful and cheap. The richness comes from the business rules, which 
actually we could implement right now with the ol'' PHP/MySQL/Apache 
provided by our web host. It''s just too slow to build it all, to hard
to
change it afterwards (effeciently) and it won''t look that different
than
other''s. The new stuff looks to lets us build and adapt very quickly
and
present in a much prettier way. That''s the magic. Yes, we could do a
lot
of this in Flash, but again, the work to result ratio is too high.

Thanks for all the quick and helpful posts. RadRails has made things go 
so much faster, it''s smart and pretty too!

-g

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

Hi Greg,

I had the same problem. I solved it by changing my .htaccess file.

I changed this line:

RewriteRule ^(.*)$ dispatch.cgi [QSA,L]

to

RewriteRule ^(.*)$ dispatch.fcgi [QSA,L]

That speeded things up a lot running my apps with scgi and InstantRails. 
I noticed it because my Cookbook app was fast, but any new ones I added 
were slow. This was one of the few files that would be different and 
could affect the way Rails works.

Joerg



Greg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In short, RoR is brand spanking new to me, I set up Instant Rails (if 
> you can call copying files "setup") and made my own simple app
via
> scaffold. One table, 11 cols, 100 rows. All is well, except when I view 
> the data, it takes 5-10 seconds to show the page, 5-10 more seconds to 
> get the edit page and so on. Going back to the previous page is no 
> faster (via previous link).
> 
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.