Hello all, coming from PHP and recognized benefits both Ruby and Rails brings, I am tempted to use Rails platform even for smaller websites with several visitors. However, I am little concerned about hosting for this really small web applications because Rails framework require 20-30MB of RAM and simple math would reveal that it is inpossible to host 200-300 Rails websites on one server like hosting providers do with PHP. I am maybe wrong how fcgi works, but this also brings question if it is even good job to buy shared hosting for PHP from provider who offer Ruby on Rails. I would appreciate any thoughts and experiences on this subject. Bojan -- Bojan Mihelac -> Ruby on Rails and Web Developer Blog : http://source.mihelac.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-/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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Bojan Mihelac wrote:> Hello all, > coming from PHP and recognized benefits both Ruby and Rails brings, I am > tempted to use Rails platform even for smaller websites with several > visitors. However, I am little concerned about hosting for this really > small web applications because Rails framework require 20-30MB of RAM > and simple math would reveal that it is inpossible to host 200-300 Rails > websites on one server like hosting providers do with PHP. I am maybe > wrong how fcgi works, but this also brings question if it is even good > job to buy shared hosting for PHP from provider who offer Ruby on Rails. > > I would appreciate any thoughts and experiences on this subject. > > Bojan >anyone? hosting providers? any answer? -- Bojan Mihelac -> Ruby on Rails and Web Developer Blog : http://source.mihelac.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-/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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hi Bojan, a good place to start if you are looking for a Rails hosting company is http://www.railshostinginfo.com . There you can compare and review many of the better known Rails hosts. 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I would agree that you cannot host 200-300 Rails applications on one server as you can with PHP. With the time you save writing those 300 applications you can, however, afford more servers. :-) IMHO, of course! -- -- Tom Mornini, CTO -- Engine Yard, Ruby on Rails Hosting -- Reliability, Ease of Use, Scalability -- (866) 518-YARD (9273) On Mar 6, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Bojan Mihelac wrote:> Bojan Mihelac wrote: >> Hello all, >> coming from PHP and recognized benefits both Ruby and Rails >> brings, I am >> tempted to use Rails platform even for smaller websites with several >> visitors. However, I am little concerned about hosting for this >> really >> small web applications because Rails framework require 20-30MB of RAM >> and simple math would reveal that it is inpossible to host 200-300 >> Rails >> websites on one server like hosting providers do with PHP. I am maybe >> wrong how fcgi works, but this also brings question if it is even >> good >> job to buy shared hosting for PHP from provider who offer Ruby on >> Rails. >> >> I would appreciate any thoughts and experiences on this subject. >> >> Bojan >> > > anyone? hosting providers? any answer? > > -- > Bojan Mihelac > -> Ruby on Rails and Web Developer Blog : http://source.mihelac.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-/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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Nick Snels wrote:> Hi Bojan, > > a good place to start if you are looking for a Rails hosting company is > http://www.railshostinginfo.com . There you can compare and review many > of the better known Rails hosts. > > Kind regards, > > Nick >thanks for answer Nick, but I do not evaluate hosting companies (already have both shared server and VPS). The questions I look for answer are: 1. is it possible to host very small Rails sites on shared server and get decent performance (as you can get with PHP)? 2. if thats not option how many small Rails apps you can put on VPS, with for example 256MB RAM 3. if 1. is not possible, then it brings me to question if it is smart for user to buy PHP hosting from companies offering RAILS and PHP on same server as performance of PHP would be problematic as well -- Bojan Mihelac -> Ruby on Rails and Web Developer Blog : http://source.mihelac.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-/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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Tom Mornini wrote:> I would agree that you cannot host 200-300 Rails applications on one > server > as you can with PHP. > > With the time you save writing those 300 applications you can, however, > afford more servers. :-) > > IMHO, of course! >hey Tom, I couldn''t agree more with you that less time to develop would justify higher hosting price. That''s why I want to put smaller apps on rails as well :) But how many apps you can host on server? I am thinking about really small apps. 30-40? And is then true that buying shared server space for hosting rails apps sucks (even buying shared server space for hosting PHP apps if they offer rails hosting on same servers). best regards, Bojan -- Bojan Mihelac -> Ruby on Rails and Web Developer Blog : http://source.mihelac.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-/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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:04:47PM +0100, Bojan Mihelac wrote :> 1. is it possible to host very small Rails sites on shared server and > get decent performance (as you can get with PHP)?I''ve tried with fastCGI, it''s a mess and not stable at all. If you are on the edge (Apache2.2), use Mongrel and you''ll have better results. But it''s complicated, I''m sure you agree, when you have already a production server with several websites to be on the bleeding edge. I''ll try an upgrade to use Mongrel, but I have to prepare the field...> 3. if 1. is not possible, then it brings me to question if it is smart > for user to buy PHP hosting from companies offering RAILS and PHP on > same server as performance of PHP would be problematic as wellI didn''t notice problems of performance with php sites where I''ve deployed my Rails app''. Just my $0.02. -- ,========================. | Pierre-Alexandre Meyer | | email : pam-1sEOgp2Wo8Qdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.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-/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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Pierre-Alexandre Meyer wrote:> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:04:47PM +0100, Bojan Mihelac wrote : >> 1. is it possible to host very small Rails sites on shared server and >> get decent performance (as you can get with PHP)? > > I''ve tried with fastCGI, it''s a mess and not stable at all. If you are > on the edge (Apache2.2), use Mongrel and you''ll have better results. > > But it''s complicated, I''m sure you agree, when you have already a > production server with several websites to be on the bleeding edge. > I''ll try an upgrade to use Mongrel, but I have to prepare the field...I use Mongrel on VPS and it is not very complicated to setup (Rimuhosting have great howto article on this, you can check it out)> >> 3. if 1. is not possible, then it brings me to question if it is smart >> for user to buy PHP hosting from companies offering RAILS and PHP on >> same server as performance of PHP would be problematic as well > > I didn''t notice problems of performance with php sites where I''ve > deployed my Rails app''. > > Just my $0.02. >but it seems logic to me that even php sites would start to have problems once many rails apps on server start to consume RAM... or? Bojan -- Bojan Mihelac -> Ruby on Rails and Web Developer Blog : http://source.mihelac.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-/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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:31:54PM +0100, Bojan Mihelac wrote :> I use Mongrel on VPS and it is not very complicated to setup > (Rimuhosting have great howto article on this, you can check it out)I''m sorry, my english is so bad. I mean ''complicated'' but I wanted to say ''dangerous''. You know you have a production server whith 100 php websites for 30 customers. You have tuned your Apache2.0.3-stable-rc12 configuration and so on. You can''t just rebuild Apache to have the 2.2 and restart it, whithout taking care of not breaking your actual sites. So ''complicated'' means you need to read Apache changelogs, etc. It''s just sysadmin work, not complicated at all actually, but you have to be careful not to break your system and loose your gentles customers :)> but it seems logic to me that even php sites would start to have > problems once many rails apps on server start to consume RAM... or?Sure. I''ve actually crashed a production server with fastCGI (kernel out of memory...) :/ The point is, that the lack of performance for me is due to the reduced number of cgi processes. I''ve reduced them to avoid another crash (and I think the regular call to the GC speed low my app too). Php websites are (surprisingly?) not at all affected. -- ,========================. | Pierre-Alexandre Meyer | | email : pam-1sEOgp2Wo8Qdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.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-/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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Pierre-Alexandre Meyer wrote:> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:31:54PM +0100, Bojan Mihelac wrote : >> I use Mongrel on VPS and it is not very complicated to setup >> (Rimuhosting have great howto article on this, you can check it out) > > I''m sorry, my english is so bad. I mean ''complicated'' but I wanted to > say ''dangerous''. You know you have a production server whith 100 php > websites for 30 customers. You have tuned your Apache2.0.3-stable-rc12 > configuration and so on. > > You can''t just rebuild Apache to have the 2.2 and restart it, whithout taking > care of not breaking your actual sites. So ''complicated'' means you need > to read Apache changelogs, etc. It''s just sysadmin work, not complicated > at all actually, but you have to be careful not to break your system and > loose your gentles customers :) > >> but it seems logic to me that even php sites would start to have >> problems once many rails apps on server start to consume RAM... or? > > Sure. I''ve actually crashed a production server with fastCGI (kernel out > of memory...) :/ > The point is, that the lack of performance for me is due to the reduced > number of cgi processes. I''ve reduced them to avoid another crash > (and I think the regular call to the GC speed low my app too). > Php websites are (surprisingly?) not at all affected. >I have few websites on shared host and I notice performance downgrades every few months a little, I asume that more and more users install their rails apps. I''ll try to check PHP sites on same server for change. best regards, Bojan -- Bojan Mihelac -> Ruby on Rails and Web Developer Blog : http://source.mihelac.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-/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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> But how many apps you can host on server? I am thinking about really > small apps. 30-40?I''m running Apache+FastCGI on a Servint VPS, and each dispatch.fcgi process is using 19mb of memory. If your projects are *really* small, maybe you can get away with one process per site. With 768mb of guaranteed memory on a decent VPS (eg Servint''s "Ultimate" package), I''d say that 30 sites is possible. That drops you to $4/site/month, which isn''t outrageous. Gwyn. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Gwyn Morfey wrote:>> But how many apps you can host on server? I am thinking about really >> small apps. 30-40? > I''m running Apache+FastCGI on a Servint VPS, and each dispatch.fcgi > process is using 19mb of memory. If your projects are *really* small, > maybe you can get away with one process per site. With 768mb of > guaranteed memory on a decent VPS (eg Servint''s "Ultimate" package), > I''d say that 30 sites is possible. That drops you to $4/site/month, > which isn''t outrageous. > > Gwyn. >Thanks Gwyn for answer, thats clarify much questions I had. -- Bojan Mihelac -> Ruby on Rails and Web Developer Blog : http://source.mihelac.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-/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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Gwyn Morfey wrote:>> But how many apps you can host on server? I am thinking about really >> small apps. 30-40? > I''m running Apache+FastCGI on a Servint VPS, and each dispatch.fcgi > process is using 19mb of memory. If your projects are *really* small, > maybe you can get away with one process per site. With 768mb of > guaranteed memory on a decent VPS (eg Servint''s "Ultimate" package), > I''d say that 30 sites is possible. That drops you to $4/site/month, > which isn''t outrageous. > > Gwyn.You also have to consider the merits of Rails for really small apps. I''m not sure exactly what you mean by really small app, but the truth is, if they''re that small, perhaps Rails doesn''t provide quite the productivity multiple you would expect. As apps get larger (but not too large!), certainly the benefits of Rails becomes clearer. But for really tiny things, you''ll have quite a bit of overhead in Rails. In particular, as you''ve noticed, with the server resources. Also note that you need to consider the effects of having a single mongrel instance serving each app. Most folks are running multiple mongrels and using Apache''s load balancer to keep things running smoothly. Can you give me an idea of what "really small" is? -- 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Jake Janovetz wrote:> Gwyn Morfey wrote: >>> But how many apps you can host on server? I am thinking about really >>> small apps. 30-40? >> I''m running Apache+FastCGI on a Servint VPS, and each dispatch.fcgi >> process is using 19mb of memory. If your projects are *really* small, >> maybe you can get away with one process per site. With 768mb of >> guaranteed memory on a decent VPS (eg Servint''s "Ultimate" package), >> I''d say that 30 sites is possible. That drops you to $4/site/month, >> which isn''t outrageous. >> >> Gwyn. > > You also have to consider the merits of Rails for really small apps. > I''m not sure exactly what you mean by really small app, but the truth > is, if they''re that small, perhaps Rails doesn''t provide quite the > productivity multiple you would expect. > > As apps get larger (but not too large!), certainly the benefits of Rails > becomes clearer. But for really tiny things, you''ll have quite a bit of > overhead in Rails. In particular, as you''ve noticed, with the server > resources. > > Also note that you need to consider the effects of having a single > mongrel instance serving each app. Most folks are running multiple > mongrels and using Apache''s load balancer to keep things running > smoothly. > > Can you give me an idea of what "really small" is? >by ''small Rails apps'' I meant applications with expected small traffic and only few concurrent users. For example personal wiki or personal blog. best regards, Bojan -- Bojan Mihelac -> Ruby on Rails and Web Developer Blog : http://source.mihelac.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-/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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> > You also have to consider the merits of Rails for really small apps. > > I''m not sure exactly what you mean by really small app, but the truth > > is, if they''re that small, perhaps Rails doesn''t provide quite the > > productivity multiple you would expect.I''m still mostly using PHP for the really small stuff - eg mostly static html, with a couple of user-configurable pages. One option is CakePHP, which lets you maintain some of Rails'' design patterns without the hosting headache. Gwyn. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---