I''m sure this question is very subjective, but I''m looking for input and advice. I just purchased a shiny new dedicated server from gate.com and I''m trying to decide what I should use to serve up my rails app: Mongrel, Apache, LiteHttp, other? The key points I''m concerned about are: * Speed & Overall performance * Reliability * Ability to deal with high load * Difficulty to configure (virtual hosts, memory allocation, etc) * Maintenance Please share your experience and opinions. Let me know of any important differences you''ve seen between the servers. Since I have a fresh server, I''m looking to start right -- instead of getting ingrained in something I can''t easily change later. Thanks, Jeremy --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Nginx (Front-end) proxy-balancing for (3-4) Mongrel Clusters, deployed to server using Capistrano through SVN Repository, Processes monitored using Monit or God all this on a solid linux distro. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
@Nathan And I could (should?) do this on a single CPU? I''ve never done load balancing or clusters before. On a single machine how does that give better performance than one server process? Thanks! On Mar 17, 11:08 am, Nathan Esquenazi <rails-mailing-l...@andreas- s.net> wrote:> Nginx (Front-end) proxy-balancing for (3-4) Mongrel Clusters, deployed > to server using Capistrano through SVN Repository, Processes monitored > using Monit or God all this on a solid linux distro. > -- > Posted viahttp://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 Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Mozmonkey wrote:> And I could (should?) do this on a single CPU? I''ve never done load > balancing or clusters before. On a single machine how does that give > better performance than one server process?Sure, but the other main benefit is that your application will be scaleable. When you''re ready to buy more servers, the Mongrels could run on a different cluster than nginx. -- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 17 Mar 2008, at 18:27, Eno wrote:> > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Mozmonkey wrote: > >> And I could (should?) do this on a single CPU? I''ve never done load >> balancing or clusters before. On a single machine how does that give >> better performance than one server process? > > Sure, but the other main benefit is that your application will be > scaleable. When you''re ready to buy more servers, the Mongrels could > run > on a different cluster than nginx.A mongrel can only handle one rails request at a time. Mean while nginx could very easily be serving static pages (stylesheets images etc...). Even just focussing on the mongrels, they''re not going to utilise your server fully, some time is spent doing disk io, some is spent talking to the database etc... Fred --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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''m liking the idea of a mongrel cluster. So if a single mongrel instance can only handle one request at a time, then when you cluster 3 - 4 under nginx does that mean it can only handle 3 - 4 requests at a time, or does nginx take care of handling more? Thanks.> > A mongrel can only handle one rails request at a time. Mean while > nginx could very easily be serving static pages (stylesheets images > etc...). Even just focussing on the mongrels, they''re not going to > utilise your server fully, some time is spent doing disk io, some is > spent talking to the database etc... > > Fred--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Litespeed? Extremely easy setup, very fast, dynamic process allocation. All the hassle just gone. No FCGI to mess up things, no mongrels, and much much less deployment complexity. / Peter 17 mar 2008 kl. 20.13 skrev Mozmonkey:> > I''m liking the idea of a mongrel cluster. So if a single mongrel > instance can only handle one request at a time, then when you cluster > 3 - 4 under nginx does that mean it can only handle 3 - 4 requests at > a time, or does nginx take care of handling more? > > Thanks. > > >> >> A mongrel can only handle one rails request at a time. Mean while >> nginx could very easily be serving static pages (stylesheets images >> etc...). Even just focussing on the mongrels, they''re not going to >> utilise your server fully, some time is spent doing disk io, some is >> spent talking to the database etc... >> >> Fred > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Mozmonkey wrote:> I''m sure this question is very subjective, but I''m looking for input > and advice. I just purchased a shiny new dedicated server from > gate.com and I''m trying to decide what I should use to serve up my > rails app: Mongrel, Apache, LiteHttp, other?I''ve read some good things (http://codemonkey.ravelry.com/2008/03/10/load-balancing/) about combining Nginx (static content server) with Thin (rails app server with Mongrel ancestry). Nginx: http://wiki.codemongers.com/Main and http://www.nginx.net/ Thin: http://code.macournoyer.com/thin/ I must admit I haven''t had the chance to try out this software combination myself, but the throughput on the Ravelry site is pretty impressive. As a side note, my wife is on Ravelry enough that I can confirm the performance really is solid - it''s not just statistical hocus pocus. Off topic diversion... Speaking of statistical hocus pocus in a good way, in honor of the upcoming NCAA basketball tournament, this article by Bill James on Slate is an entertaining (and short) read. http://www.slate.com/id/2185975/ - Aaron --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 can recommend Litespeed. It''s trivial to setup - run a short install script, configure through a web-based control panel. The standard (free) version just screams compared to Apache (several times faster), and Rails deployment is as painless as PHP. There''s no proxying to app servers like Mongrel, no "stack"... just Litespeed. Took about 15 minutes from downloading litespeed to having a rails app running. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Interesting comments about Litespeed. I currently run 3 mongrel processes on each of my servers, and use monit to restart them after they start to consume upwards of 120 megs of RAM. Under heavy load, they can restart as often as every 4 hours. Although sometimes they''ll run for a day without a restart. In any case, I''ve been curious about other solutions, since it''d be nice to not have to rely on my processes being restarted multiple times per day. Anyone else had good experience with the free version of Litespeed? Adam On 3/17/08, Jeff <jeff-07OyhYUIVM1BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > > I can recommend Litespeed. It''s trivial to setup - run a short install > script, configure through a web-based control panel. The standard > (free) version just screams compared to Apache (several times faster), > and Rails deployment is as painless as PHP. There''s no proxying to app > servers like Mongrel, no "stack"... just Litespeed. Took about 15 > minutes from downloading litespeed to having a rails app running. > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Yes, I''ve had great success on LiteSpeed, with about a half dozen apps deployed with it. Nice small footprint and great throughput. On Mar 17, 5:53 pm, "Adam Cohen" <ocdra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Interesting comments about Litespeed. I currently run 3 mongrel processes > on each of my servers, and use monit to restart them after they start to > consume upwards of 120 megs of RAM. Under heavy load, they can restart as > often as every 4 hours. Although sometimes they''ll run for a day without a > restart. In any case, I''ve been curious about other solutions, since it''d be > nice to not have to rely on my processes being restarted multiple times per > day. > Anyone else had good experience with the free version of Litespeed? > > Adam > > On 3/17/08, Jeff <j...-07OyhYUIVM1BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > I can recommend Litespeed. It''s trivial to setup - run a short install > > script, configure through a web-based control panel. The standard > > (free) version just screams compared to Apache (several times faster), > > and Rails deployment is as painless as PHP. There''s no proxying to app > > servers like Mongrel, no "stack"... just Litespeed. Took about 15 > > minutes from downloading litespeed to having a rails app running.--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Adam Cohen schrieb:> Interesting comments about Litespeed. I currently run 3 mongrel > processes on each of my servers, and use monit to restart them after > they start to consume upwards of 120 megs of RAM. Under heavy load, > they can restart as often as every 4 hours. Although sometimes they''ll > run for a day without a restart. In any case, I''ve been curious about > other solutions, since it''d be nice to not have to rely on my processes > being restarted multiple times per day.I''m just starting with RoR. But your mail let me doubt, if RoR would suit me fine. My apaches with php just run for months without any restart (manually or via a script). Martin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 18 Mar 2008, at 13:10, Martin wrote:> > Adam Cohen schrieb: >> Interesting comments about Litespeed. I currently run 3 mongrel >> processes on each of my servers, and use monit to restart them after >> they start to consume upwards of 120 megs of RAM. Under heavy load, >> they can restart as often as every 4 hours. Although sometimes >> they''ll >> run for a day without a restart. In any case, I''ve been curious about >> other solutions, since it''d be nice to not have to rely on my >> processes >> being restarted multiple times per day. > > I''m just starting with RoR. But your mail let me doubt, if RoR would > suit me fine. My apaches with php just run for months without any > restart (manually or via a script).Seems to vary. I never restart mine except for our fortnightly releases. I have herad that things like rmagick are a bit leaky. Fred --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
KathysKode-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
2008-Mar-18 14:58 UTC
Re: Best Production Server to Use
Andy, For what its worth I too use Litespeed and it works well. I hired someone to install it for me. If you guys ever find a source that explains to the ''newbie'' how to install it, I''d be grateful. What''s funny is that people always write explanations to themselves. They never imagine the person viewing their explanation has little in common with their knowledge. Thank you, Kathleen On Mar 18, 5:39 am, AndyV <a...-HmMyXyqgL2CVc3sceRu5cw@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Yes, I''ve had great success on LiteSpeed, with about a half dozen apps > deployed with it. Nice small footprint and great throughput. > > On Mar 17, 5:53 pm, "Adam Cohen" <ocdra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > Interesting comments about Litespeed. I currently run 3 mongrel processes > > on each of my servers, and use monit to restart them after they start to > > consume upwards of 120 megs of RAM. Under heavy load, they can restart as > > often as every 4 hours. Although sometimes they''ll run for a day without a > > restart. In any case, I''ve been curious about other solutions, since it''d be > > nice to not have to rely on my processes being restarted multiple times per > > day. > > Anyone else had good experience with the free version of Litespeed? > > > Adam > > > On 3/17/08, Jeff <j...-07OyhYUIVM1BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > I can recommend Litespeed. It''s trivial to setup - run a short install > > > script, configure through a web-based control panel. The standard > > > (free) version just screams compared to Apache (several times faster), > > > and Rails deployment is as painless as PHP. There''s no proxying to app > > > servers like Mongrel, no "stack"... just Litespeed. Took about 15 > > > minutes from downloading litespeed to having a rails app running.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text ---~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 18 Mar 2008, at 14:12, Frederick Cheung wrote:>>> Interesting comments about Litespeed. I currently run 3 mongrel >>> processes on each of my servers, and use monit to restart them after >>> they start to consume upwards of 120 megs of RAM. Under heavy load, >>> they can restart as often as every 4 hours. Although sometimes >>> they''ll >>> run for a day without a restart. In any case, I''ve been curious >>> about >>> other solutions, since it''d be nice to not have to rely on my >>> processes >>> being restarted multiple times per day. >> > Seems to vary. I never restart mine except for our fortnightly > releases. I have herad that things like rmagick are a bit leaky.I haven''t needed to restart a single mongrel for months now (and the last restart was due to a power failure in the datacenter), before that mongrels were running for months already. 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 Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Martin <html-kurs-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Adam Cohen schrieb: > > Interesting comments about Litespeed. I currently run 3 mongrel > > processes on each of my servers, and use monit to restart them after > > they start to consume upwards of 120 megs of RAM. Under heavy load, > > they can restart as often as every 4 hours. Although sometimes they''ll > > run for a day without a restart. In any case, I''ve been curious about > > other solutions, since it''d be nice to not have to rely on my processes > > being restarted multiple times per day. > > I''m just starting with RoR. But your mail let me doubt, if RoR would > suit me fine. My apaches with php just run for months without any > restart (manually or via a script).Don''t let my experiences dissuade you from RoR. There''s many people who run the full Rails server stack without issue. I just happen to be experiencing major memory leaks that I haven''t been able to resolve. I could end up having the exact same issue with Litespeed, but I think I''ll give it a try to see how it works out. Adam --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 Mar 18, 2008, at 10:44 AM, Peter De Berdt wrote:> On 18 Mar 2008, at 14:12, Frederick Cheung wrote: > >>>> Interesting comments about Litespeed. I currently run 3 mongrel >>>> processes on each of my servers, and use monit to restart them >>>> after >>>> they start to consume upwards of 120 megs of RAM. Under heavy >>>> load, >>>> they can restart as often as every 4 hours. Although sometimes >>>> they''ll >>>> run for a day without a restart. In any case, I''ve been curious >>>> about >>>> other solutions, since it''d be nice to not have to rely on my >>>> processes >>>> being restarted multiple times per day. >>> >> Seems to vary. I never restart mine except for our fortnightly >> releases. I have herad that things like rmagick are a bit leaky. > > I haven''t needed to restart a single mongrel for months now (and the > last restart was due to a power failure in the datacenter), before > that mongrels were running for months already.My experience is similar to Peter''s. I have sites that run for months, only pausing for new features to be added or a periodic server reboot, which can be as infrequently as 11 months :) I''m using rmagick on one of the sites, but haven''t seen memory leaks, although the graphics are a light part of the load. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 can concur with Peter as well. We used Image Science for our image uploading and we didn''t have a need for the more complex processing that RMagick provides so we avoided it (based on memory leak heresay). We have the setup I described in the previous post (running monit also to be safe) and the fact is that the mongrels pretty much just don''t really "go down". I mean we might take them offline but we have been running the site for years and never ran into problems (under an admittedly moderate load). For the sake of argument, even if the mongrels do go down, with the 10 minutes it takes to setup monit, they would be automatically resarted (and notify me via email) within seconds. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
There is another issue with Mongrel setups which rarely is mentioned, and that is the fact that the number of Mongrels is static with respect to each application. No matter the load, the Mongrels dedicated to an application will take up memory space. With Litespeed, the allocation of server processes is dynamic. Meaning, it can fluctuate depending on load, available memory and other factors. Litespeed can kill off or spawn new processes as needed. And the spawning is very fast, too. This means that it is possible to serve more applications from the same box than with any solution where each app has a fixed number of Mongrels allocated to it. / Peter 18 mar 2008 kl. 21.10 skrev Nathan Esquenazi:> > I can concur with Peter as well. We used Image Science for our image > uploading and we didn''t have a need for the more complex processing > that > RMagick provides so we avoided it (based on memory leak heresay). We > have the setup I described in the previous post (running monit also to > be safe) and the fact is that the mongrels pretty much just don''t > really > "go down". I mean we might take them offline but we have been running > the site for years and never ran into problems (under an admittedly > moderate load). For the sake of argument, even if the mongrels do go > down, with the 10 minutes it takes to setup monit, they would be > automatically resarted (and notify me via email) within seconds. > -- > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Having mongrels in single machine or multiple machines? Which one is best? -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
[...]> With Litespeed, the allocation of server processes is dynamic. > Meaning, it can fluctuate depending on load, available memory and > other factors. Litespeed can kill off or spawn new processes as > needed. And the spawning is very fast, too.[...] So Litespeed works like apache and mod_php? No other server is needed? No load-balancing? I can run several application in one domain? But I have to pay for it if it runs on a server with more than a single CPU? Sorry for the questions, I''m a newbie to RoR and I try to understand how it acts compared to php I''m currently using. Martin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 Mar 19, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Martin wrote:> So Litespeed works like apache and mod_php?Yes.> No other server is needed?No.> No load-balancing?It load balances automatically in term of creating and destroying server processes on the same box, just like apache+mod_php. (If you want to distribute your load over several boxes you have to use the standard means of doing so, just like with any solution.)> I can run several application in one domain?Yes.> But I have to pay for it if it runs on a server with more than a > single CPU?No. This is a common misconception. You can run Litespeed on multiprocessor boxes, but it will only utilize one processor in that case. The free version supports up to 150 simultaneous requests, which is extremely high. You won''t hit that ceiling in a long, long time. You can regard the free version as more or less unlimited.> Sorry for the questions, I''m a newbie to RoR and I try to understand > how > it acts compared to php I''m currently using.You will find that Litespeed operates more or less exactly like apache and mod_php. It is completely beyond me why people persist in using mongrel clusters nowadays. Litespeed is so much faster and easier to use. / Peter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Peter Bengtson wrote:> You will find that Litespeed operates more or less exactly like apache > and mod_php. It is completely beyond me why people persist in using > mongrel clusters nowadays.Maybe because it works for them and is more extensible ? Just one question : how do you upload huge files (I have a client which routinely exchanges CD images over FTP and is migrating to HTTP so this is a real-life scenario) without using huge amounts of memory on Litespeed + RoR ? Is anything like the mongrel/merb upload-progress bars solutions available ?> Litespeed is so much faster and easier to > use. >The in-kernel Linux http daemon was even faster and easier to use (could only serve static files initially so basically no configuration). That didn''t make it better in general... I can hack Apache/Lighttpd/Nginx sources and actually did so for Apache and Nginx for business purposes. I can''t with Litespeed so I''ll restrict my business opportunities or rely on the editor to implement the changes I need. So if you need flexibility like me Litespeed is out right away. Lionel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---