hey all, I''m looking to deploy my rails app but havn''t decided yet on the setup. mongrel_cluster+pound looks like the most simple solution but is it enough (as in will it scale :) if the server gets a lot of visitors? or is (pound?)+apache2+mongrel or anything else better? thanx in advance Pat --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hello Patrick, 2006/10/19, Patrick Aljord <patcito@gmail.com>:> I'm looking to deploy my rails app but havn't decided yet on the setup. > mongrel_cluster+pound looks like the most simple solution but is it enough > (as in will it scale :) if the server gets a lot of visitors? or is > (pound?)+apache2+mongrel or anything else better?It is recommended that you let a regular web server handle the static file content. Mongrel can serve the static file content, but it is supposed to make a more robust system. Personnaly, I have Apache2 + mod_balance talking to Mongrel backends. This is rock solid and have had no problems. Of course, I don't have huge loads on the servers. Bye ! -- François Beausoleil http://blog.teksol.info/ http://piston.rubyforge.org/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 10/19/06, Francois Beausoleil <francois.beausoleil-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > It is recommended that you let a regular web server handle the static > file content. Mongrel can serve the static file content, but it is > supposed to make a more robust system. > > Personnaly, I have Apache2 + mod_balance talking to Mongrel backends. > This is rock solid and have had no problems. Of course, I don''t have > huge loads on the servers.do you know of a good tutorial do do a apache2+mod_balancing+mongrel, I found some but they were pretty complex. thanx in advance Pat --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>> It is recommended that you let a regular web server handle the static >> file content. Mongrel can serve the static file content, but it is >> supposed to make a more robust system. >> >> Personnaly, I have Apache2 + mod_balance talking to Mongrel backends. >> This is rock solid and have had no problems. Of course, I don''t have >> huge loads on the servers. > > > do you know of a good tutorial do do a apache2+mod_balancing+mongrel, I > found some but they were pretty complex.What do you need? Search the lists for configuration examples (this list, but more importantly the mongrel list). Other than that it''s just installing apache2 and mongrel then configuring.... -philip --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I''m currently using Litespeed (http://www.litespeedtech.com) and I''m really happy with it, it is: - easy to setup - really fast - uses few resources (much less than a mongrel cluster) - and easy to update Take a look at the tutorials at http://i.nfectio.us/articles/2006/09/04/litespeed-web-server-2-2-includes-rails-support, to see how good it is. But first experiment with Apache + Mongrel + Pound, it will make Litespeed even better. Kind regards, Nick -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
hi there, here´s another configuration that i use for a rather large site with lots and lots of db reads but considerably less db writes (think cms and a fair amount of sweepstakes) i have litespeed as the server on one machine mysql5 on another machine a cluster of memcached machines to cache pretty much all the db reads i use cached model for the models and put them in memcached i also put the sessions into memcached this works extremely well and beat a mongrel cluster for my purposes. even though i must say that the biggest speed improvement of the whole setup was memcached and litespeed was just icing on the cake. a quick rundown of the stuff that needs to be installed: http://www.danga.com/memcached/ the ruby bindings for that can be installed as a gem cached model also and of course litespeed kind regards, alexander Nick Snels wrote:>I''m currently using Litespeed (http://www.litespeedtech.com) and I''m >really happy with it, it is: > >- easy to setup >- really fast >- uses few resources (much less than a mongrel cluster) >- and easy to update > >Take a look at the tutorials at >http://i.nfectio.us/articles/2006/09/04/litespeed-web-server-2-2-includes-rails-support, >to see how good it is. But first experiment with Apache + Mongrel + >Pound, it will make Litespeed even better. > >Kind regards, > >Nick > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---