Rails - Dec 2007 - How is rails different from PHP from Apache's view?

Hi,

I love rails much better than php.
(I''m not a php expert, though.)
However, when I use rails with apache, it''s painful.
(I use Dreamhost as my web hosting server, by the way)

I know that I can''t compare rails with php because rails is a framework
and php is a language.
Let''s just think that rails is a ruby with some libraries.
Then it''s comparison between php and ruby, right?

Why is rails so difficult to deploy while php is easy?
Can we make rails as easy as php for apache, or is it fundamentally
impossible?

This is not a rant but pure curiosity.

Thanks.

Sam
-- 
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Dec 23, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Sam Kong wrote:
> I know that I can''t compare rails with php because rails is a  
> framework
> and php is a language.
> Let''s just think that rails is a ruby with some libraries.
> Then it''s comparison between php and ruby, right?
PHP runs on most servers as an Apache module. That means you can get  
PHP cobbled into Apache with little effort and every Web host on the  
planet does this for you. Ruby does not run (well) as an Apache  
module. That means you have to manage the efficiencies of  
instantiating the Ruby interpreter as infrequently as possible. This  
is normally done by running Rails inside mongrel as a long running  
process.

The deployment difficulty is simply that of taking the mongrels down  
and pointing them at new code. Once you''ve done a few deployments, it  
will seem a lot easier. Oh, and Capistrano make it almost automatic  
for many cases.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Steve,

Steve Ross wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Sam Kong wrote:
> 
>> I know that I can''t compare rails with php because rails is a
>> framework
>> and php is a language.
>> Let''s just think that rails is a ruby with some libraries.
>> Then it''s comparison between php and ruby, right?
> 
> PHP runs on most servers as an Apache module. That means you can get
> PHP cobbled into Apache with little effort and every Web host on the
> planet does this for you. Ruby does not run (well) as an Apache
> module. That means you have to manage the efficiencies of
> instantiating the Ruby interpreter as infrequently as possible. This
> is normally done by running Rails inside mongrel as a long running
> process.
Is it possible to make an Apache module for rails?
If so, why hasn''t it be made yet?
If not, why?
> 
> The deployment difficulty is simply that of taking the mongrels down
> and pointing them at new code. Once you''ve done a few deployments,
it
> will seem a lot easier. Oh, and Capistrano make it almost automatic
> for many cases.
Yes.
But some web hosting servers like Dreamhost don''t support mongrel.:-(

Thanks.
Sam
-- 
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

> Is it possible to make an Apache module for rails?
> If so, why hasn''t it be made yet?
> If not, why?
mod_ruby is not completely reentrant and that makes it problematic for  
long running Web applications like Rails. There may be other issues  
I''m not aware of, but I''ve not heard much about people using
mod_ruby.
>> Yes.
> But some web hosting servers like Dreamhost don''t support
mongrel.:-(
I don''t host anything on Dreamhost, but a quick Google turned this up:

http://discussion.dreamhost.com/showflat.pl?Board=forum_programming&Number=96032

Maybe it''s of some help.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Steve Ross wrote:
>> Is it possible to make an Apache module for rails?
>> If so, why hasn''t it be made yet?
>> If not, why?
> 
> mod_ruby is not completely reentrant and that makes it problematic for
> long running Web applications like Rails. There may be other issues
> I''m not aware of, but I''ve not heard much about people
using mod_ruby.
Hmmm, I see.
> 
>>> Yes.
>> But some web hosting servers like Dreamhost don''t support
mongrel.:-(
> 
> I don''t host anything on Dreamhost, but a quick Google turned this
up:
> 
>
http://discussion.dreamhost.com/showflat.pl?Board=forum_programming&Number=96032
There are 2 problems with that.
1. It uses Premium Service.
2. Even with that, the writer has a problem that the process is being 
killed, which happens a lot in Dreamhost.
> 
> Maybe it''s of some help.
I appreciate your help.

Sam
-- 
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On 24 Dec 2007, at 08:05, Sam Kong wrote:
>> The deployment difficulty is simply that of taking the mongrels down
>> and pointing them at new code. Once you''ve done a few
deployments, it
>> will seem a lot easier. Oh, and Capistrano make it almost automatic
>> for many cases.
>
> Yes.
> But some web hosting servers like Dreamhost don''t support
mongrel.:-(
One good reason not to use a shared host for rails hosting,  
especially the really cheap ones (except maybe one or two exceptions  
that confirm the rule).


Best regards

Peter De Berdt


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Dec 23, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Sam Kong wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I love rails much better than php.
I do, too.
> (I''m not a php expert, though.)
I''m not either.
> However, when I use rails with apache, it''s painful.
Very.
> (I use Dreamhost as my web hosting server, by the way)
Sorry to hear that.  I was involved in a project that tried to deploy  
to DreamHost.  I had nothing but problems.  And it was very slow.   
Even SSHing to the command line was like frozen syrup. I would advise  
searching for a host that is dedicated to Rails deployments, not one  
that just tacks it on.
>
> I know that I can''t compare rails with php because rails is a  
> framework
> and php is a language.
> Let''s just think that rails is a ruby with some libraries.
> Then it''s comparison between php and ruby, right?
Right, you''d want to compare PHP to Ruby.  It''s a matter of  
preference.  I like Ruby.  I remember when I was making a decision  
between Python and Ruby, I read an article that offered a very sound  
piece of advice.  It went something like this:  both Python and Ruby  
are great and you can accomplish whatever you need to in them, but  
they feel different.  Try both out and go with the one that "feels  
better" to you.  I did that, and I like the feel of Ruby.  I also  
like the feel of Rails.
>
> Why is rails so difficult to deploy while php is easy?
> Can we make rails as easy as php for apache, or is it fundamentally
> impossible?
I don''t know any of the details, but Ruby 1.9 is just around the  
corner.  I read somewhere that performance is at least 2.5 times  
better.  I''ve also read somewhere about a different Ruby VM that will  
hopefully make it faster.  While none of this is reality today, it  
does bring some hope.  Until then, you do have options.  I use  
LiteSpeed.  Even though it''s not open source, the standard version  
(32 bit, one CPU) is free.  It''s pretty snappy.  They wrote their own  
Ruby API and it''s supposed to be the fastest way to run Rails apps.   
They also support PHP, and _claim_ it can be 5 times faster than  
mod_php.  I have not done any benchmarks, so I can''t say if their  
claims are true.  This is what I do know from my own personal  
experience: It''s easy and it seems to perform well.  I like it.   
www.litespeedtech.com. [I''m not affiliated with them in any way!]

Before I switched to LiteSpeed, I used Mongrel behind Apache.  And  
while this works fine, there are some aspects of it that I don''t  
like.  You have to run a Mongrel process listening on a dedicated  
port.  So if you have a cluster of three Mongrels, they are listening  
on three ports.  When you have a lot of apps on your server, you have  
to remember which ports are taken.  It can become a headache  
quickly.  With LiteSpeed, you can have multiple listeners if you  
want, or you can have just one (in which case it works basically like  
Apache and a mod). Also, each of those three Mongrel processes are  
running a Ruby process and taking up RAM, the amount depends on the  
size of your application.  I''ve read that a decent sized application  
can occupy 40M, but again, I don''t know if that''s true. 
I''ve not yet
bothered to check as I''m still in development and my server is a  
sandbox. And to be fair, I don''t know exactly how LiteSpeed manages  
memory.  The configuration for LiteSpeed is also a lot easier than  
Apache/Mongrel as well.  I don''t have to futz with configuration  
files.  LiteSpeed comes with a template preconfigured for Rails apps,  
so adding a new app is as easy as a couple of clicks and filling in  
three values.

Your mileage may vary. I used to think that I liked flexibility.  I  
have come to realize that I actually prefer ease and productivity.   
That''s why I use a Mac, and that''s why I like Rails.
>
> This is not a rant but pure curiosity.
Haven''t you ever heard the saying that "curiosity killed the
cat"?  ;)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sam
Peace,
Phillip


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Dec 24, 2007, at 5:37 AM, Phillip Koebbe wrote:
> I would advise
> searching for a host that is dedicated to Rails deployments, not one
> that just tacks it on.
+1
> I don''t know any of the details, but Ruby 1.9 is just around the
> corner.  I read somewhere that performance is at least 2.5 times
> better.
Count on 1.8.6 for near-term production work. 1.9 is still an unknown.  
The VMs (Rubinius, YARV, and JRuby) may or may not fill your need. I  
know of at least one company who are using JRuby for production, but  
it''s still bleeding edge.

The speed issue is pretty much moot in all but the most successful  
cases. OP, raise your hand if you think you are getting close to the  
limits of what PHP can serve. If your hand is still down, you will  
probably not need a faster Rails solution than what''s currently  
available.

> When you have a lot of apps on your server, you have
> to remember which ports are taken.
If performance is becoming an issue, you won''t be running a lot of  
apps on the same server. Besides, whatever you are using as a front- 
end load-balancer, whether Apache, Pound, Pen, ngnix, or something  
else, will have a config file with all the ports listed.
> Also, each of those three Mongrel processes are
> running a Ruby process and taking up RAM, the amount depends on the
> size of your application.  I''ve read that a decent sized
application
> can occupy 40M
Memory can be an issue. 40M is not unusual and that''s excluding the  
amount of RAM required for the database server.

My recommendation: Deploy the app, see if it''s serving enough pages,  
then try to optimize.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Dec 24, 2007, at 4:24 PM, s.ross wrote:
>> When you have a lot of apps on your server, you have
>> to remember which ports are taken.
>
> If performance is becoming an issue, you won''t be running a lot of
> apps on the same server. Besides, whatever you are using as a front-
> end load-balancer, whether Apache, Pound, Pen, ngnix, or something
> else, will have a config file with all the ports listed.
>
My point was more toward ease, not performance.  I have a server that  
is not even close to performance limits, but I''m running a number of  
different things on it.  Sure, I can open up the apache config files  
to see what''s on a port, but it''s a hassle.  For me,
it''s just so
much nicer to not have to even bother with that. Rails makes  
development easier. LiteSpeed makes deployment easier.

Peace,
Phillip


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Steve Ross wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2007, at 5:37 AM, Phillip Koebbe wrote:
> 
>> I would advise
>> searching for a host that is dedicated to Rails deployments, not one
>> that just tacks it on.
> 
> +1
> 
>> I don''t know any of the details, but Ruby 1.9 is just around
the
>> corner.  I read somewhere that performance is at least 2.5 times
>> better.
> 
> Count on 1.8.6 for near-term production work. 1.9 is still an unknown.
> The VMs (Rubinius, YARV, and JRuby) may or may not fill your need. I
> know of at least one company who are using JRuby for production, but
> it''s still bleeding edge.
> 
> The speed issue is pretty much moot in all but the most successful
> cases. OP, raise your hand if you think you are getting close to the
> limits of what PHP can serve. If your hand is still down, you will
> probably not need a faster Rails solution than what''s currently
> available.
I''m the OP.
Read my posting.
I never mentioned anything about performance.:-)
I was just saying that deployment is painful compared to PHP especially 
on Dreamhost which doesn''t support mongrel.

Sam

> 
> 
>> When you have a lot of apps on your server, you have
>> to remember which ports are taken.
> 
> If performance is becoming an issue, you won''t be running a lot of
> apps on the same server. Besides, whatever you are using as a front-
> end load-balancer, whether Apache, Pound, Pen, ngnix, or something
> else, will have a config file with all the ports listed.
> 
>> Also, each of those three Mongrel processes are
>> running a Ruby process and taking up RAM, the amount depends on the
>> size of your application.  I''ve read that a decent sized
application
>> can occupy 40M
> 
> Memory can be an issue. 40M is not unusual and that''s excluding
the
> amount of RAM required for the database server.
> 
> My recommendation: Deploy the app, see if it''s serving enough
pages,
> then try to optimize.
-- 
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---