A search of this forum for "cloud" brought up a pretty anemic and mostly year or more old list of stuff. That was a bit of a surprise to me. I''m interested in getting opinions on the easiest way to deploy a Rails app to a well known (S3 or similar) "cloud" server. It should be something with little or no "installation" or "establishment" fees and no monthly fees...just the per/megabyte traffic fees. Would be great if deployment was via capistrano, just like a VM or dedicated server would be. Has anyone made this cheap and easy yet? Or do you still have to roll your own implementation using API''s that were designed to be general in nature and thus requiring significant development effort to get it deployed? thanks, jp -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
JP, It''s really simple but do you absolutely need to use a CDN? Amazon is one of the more popular ones but most of them are really the same. Brightbox is also very good. The only thing you really need to know is to set the assets server in your production.rb file: config.action_controller.asset_host = "somehost.com" There''s quite a few tutorials about this. However, you don''t have to use a CDN unless you have a lot of content on your site that needs to be hosted. I personally feel that CDNs are a little overrated unless you meet the following criteria: * Your content is going to be delivered to a world wide audience (multiple countries) If you are providing a local service or something where you really are not going to reach a global area, there''s no need to use a CDN. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Alpha Blue wrote:> JP, > > It''s really simple but do you absolutely need to use a CDN? Amazon is > one of the more popular ones but most of them are really the same. > Brightbox is also very good. >[...]> > If you are providing a local service or something where you really are > not going to reach a global area, there''s no need to use a CDN.Hi Alpha, I wasn''t so much interested in CDN, as I was in seamless scaling of an app from small to large without deployment hassles. It''s about deploying a social networking site that can just grow as the number of daily visitors grows without learning anything about the wonderful world of scaling Rails apps. If and when the app catches on, I want to just pay a little more money to "throw some more iron at it". Sure, I could become an expert on Rails scaling and deployment, but I don''t have any interest or time for that. Hence my interest in something "easy" and "cheap", that "just works". Some googling just uncovered "Heroku", which looks promising. Anything else out there that is similar? thanks, jp -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Jeff Pritchard < rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > A search of this forum for "cloud" brought up a pretty anemic and mostly > year or more old list of stuff. That was a bit of a surprise to me. > > I''m interested in getting opinions on the easiest way to deploy a Rails > app to a well known (S3 or similar) "cloud" server. > > It should be something with little or no "installation" or > "establishment" fees and no monthly fees...just the per/megabyte traffic > fees. > > Would be great if deployment was via capistrano, just like a VM or > dedicated server would be. > > Has anyone made this cheap and easy yet? Or do you still have to roll > your own implementation using API''s that were designed to be general in > nature and thus requiring significant development effort to get it > deployed? > > thanks, > jp > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. >I am using Rightscale and I''m very happy with the Rails integration. BTW, Rightscale is a front-end to Amazon Services (i.e. EC2, S3, Cloudfront, and so on). Also, it costs a bit more for their service in addition to Amazon charges but it was well worth it for our business. This will be common with the other front-ends to Amazon. Furthermore, I''m very pleased with the ability to have better control as to what''s going on with my server instances. Also, if you''re publishing a lot of media assets and the site has a great deal of traffic, then I would recommend having some CDN functionality within your sites'' configuration. Hulu.com would be a very good example of the use of a CDN and Rails. When I was in Japan, I noticed that every Japanese site was extremely fast being that my connection speed was 1 Giga bit per second. However, it was a sudden drop-off when accessing sites in the US that didn''t have a local CDN. Thus, you should use a CDN where it makes sense for creating the best user experience. Next, I would first focus on building solid Rails website architecture before thinking about scaling a site that doesn''t exist by using the cloud. Once the site has been built, then you can make better decisions on how to properly scale your site. For examples, there are tools that can easily allow one to simulate N concurrent users across multiple servers Lastly, it doesn''t matter which option you select you''ll have to pay for any high-traffic site that uses a lot of bandwidth. Thus, you may also want to take a look at Google App Engine. Good luck, -Conrad> > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Conrad Taylor wrote: [...]> I am using Rightscale and I''m very happy with the Rails integration. > BTW, > Rightscale is a front-end to Amazon Services (i.e. EC2, S3, Cloudfront, > and > so on).[...] Also, if you''re publishing a lot of> media assets > and the site has a great deal of traffic, then I would recommend having > some > CDN functionality within your sites'' configuration. Hulu.com would be a > very good > example of the use of a CDN and Rails. >[...]> Lastly, it doesn''t matter which option you select you''ll have to pay for > any > high-traffic site > that uses a lot of bandwidth. Thus, you may also want to take a look at > Google App Engine. > > Good luck, > > -ConradThanks Conrad, For the site I have in mind think lots of hits (in a perfect world), but low bandwidth (text and such). IM/forum, not pictures and video. think yahoo-groups plus people filling out text forms, maybe a small avatar as the only non-text "asset", rather than youtube or hulu or something like that. Not even a few low-res pictures like myspace or a dating site. Mostly just text (but lots of that flying around). Some static graphics and icons and backgrounds to make it look nice, but most of that will get cached by the browsers, so not even much dynamic content of that sort. ( and no, it''s not Yet Another RPG :) ) thanks, jp P.S. Yes, development would happen locally and on a VM server I use for other things. Once thru beta though, I would like to have a really simple deployment and scaling until it gets big enough (in my dreams) to hire a team of deployment experts and pay them big bucks to deal with all that stuff. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Hulu was designed with rails? I actually did not know this.. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Sent from my iPhone On Aug 15, 2009, at 9:06 PM, Alpha Blue <rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org > wrote:> > Hulu was designed with rails? > > I actually did not know this..http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/24/hulu-discusses-private-beta-suggests-public-launch-time-frame/ -Conrad> > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > >
On Aug 16, 12:06 am, Alpha Blue <rails-mailing-l...-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hulu was designed with rails? > > I actually did not know this.. > > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.Not that this is actually contributing to the discussion in any sort of meaningful way, but I''ve yet to come across a site served by Nginx that didnt have Mongrel or Passenger behind it. And I have this weird OCD thing about requesting dispatch.cgi for every site that *feels* like its powered by Rails (i''m usually right too, how does that even work)
last two years i am working on cloud by using amazon we use Capistrano for deployment. just one command cap deploy:cold and nothing else. On Aug 16, 7:45 am, Jeff Pritchard <rails-mailing-l...-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> A search of this forum for "cloud" brought up a pretty anemic and mostly > year or more old list of stuff. That was a bit of a surprise to me. > > I''m interested in getting opinions on the easiest way to deploy a Rails > app to a well known (S3 or similar) "cloud" server. > > It should be something with little or no "installation" or > "establishment" fees and no monthly fees...just the per/megabyte traffic > fees. > > Would be great if deployment was via capistrano, just like a VM or > dedicated server would be. > > Has anyone made this cheap and easy yet? Or do you still have to roll > your own implementation using API''s that were designed to be general in > nature and thus requiring significant development effort to get it > deployed? > > thanks, > jp > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
RightScale is good solution but very expensive, a cheaper alternative is using Scalr (scalr.net) and they have both a free version (open source) as well as a paid service (scalr.net being the paid service, only $50/month + Amazon fees). Both RightScale and Scalr are considered cloud management tools and they work very well with Amazon Web Services (EC2/S3/EBS...) RightScale feature set is richer than Scalr. You should keep in mind that Amazon is not the only kid in the game (in the PaaS - platform as a Service). There is also GoGrid and Rackspace (with their cloud offering options). Finally, there is a new breed of rails hosting solutions: Heroku and EngineYard (Solo/Flex). They provide free trials of their services and a wide range of plans. Heroku uses Amazon''s servers while Engine Yard uses Joyent. If you use Aptana''s IDE for rails development, they also provide a cloud hosting offering (AptanaCloud). So there are tons of options. The problem is that there is a wide range of expertise required for rails deployment. If you want to deal the least with server configuration, I would strongly suggest a service like Heroku (they even have github integration). I havent used EngineYard''s but their Solo offering seems quite good for development/testing as well. The moment you need production-ready features then you have to start paying for more in both Heroku/ EngineYard''s offerings. - Ricardo On Aug 15, 8:01 pm, Conrad Taylor <conra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Jeff Pritchard < > > > > > > rails-mailing-l...-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > A search of this forum for "cloud" brought up a pretty anemic and mostly > > year or more old list of stuff. That was a bit of a surprise to me. > > > I''m interested in getting opinions on the easiest way to deploy a Rails > > app to a well known (S3 or similar) "cloud" server. > > > It should be something with little or no "installation" or > > "establishment" fees and no monthly fees...just the per/megabyte traffic > > fees. > > > Would be great if deployment was via capistrano, just like a VM or > > dedicated server would be. > > > Has anyone made this cheap and easy yet? Or do you still have to roll > > your own implementation using API''s that were designed to be general in > > nature and thus requiring significant development effort to get it > > deployed? > > > thanks, > > jp > > -- > > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > I am using Rightscale and I''m very happy with the Rails integration. BTW, > Rightscale is a front-end to Amazon Services (i.e. EC2, S3, Cloudfront, and > so on). Also, it costs a bit more for their service in addition to Amazon > charges > but it was well worth it for our business. This will be common with the > other > front-ends to Amazon. > > Furthermore, I''m very pleased with the ability to have better control as to > what''s > going on with my server instances. Also, if you''re publishing a lot of > media assets > and the site has a great deal of traffic, then I would recommend having some > CDN functionality within your sites'' configuration. Hulu.com would be a > very good > example of the use of a CDN and Rails. > > When I was in Japan, I noticed that every Japanese site was extremely fast > being > that my connection speed was 1 Giga bit per second. However, it was a > sudden > drop-off when accessing sites in the US that didn''t have a local CDN. Thus, > you should > use a CDN where it makes sense for creating the best user experience. > > Next, I would first focus on building solid Rails website architecture > before thinking about > scaling a site that doesn''t exist by using the cloud. Once the site has > been built, then > you can make better decisions on how to properly scale your site. For > examples, there are > tools that can easily allow one to simulate N concurrent users across > multiple servers > > Lastly, it doesn''t matter which option you select you''ll have to pay for any > high-traffic site > that uses a lot of bandwidth. Thus, you may also want to take a look at > Google App Engine. > > Good luck, > > -Conrad > > > >
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Ricardo Sanchez <rsanchez.jayhawk-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > RightScale is good solution but very expensive, a cheaper alternative > is using Scalr (scalr.net) > and they have both a free version (open source) as well as a paid > service (scalr.net being > the paid service, only $50/month + Amazon fees).Actually, the current charge for scalr.net is $99 per/month + Amazon charges. The $50 per/month was before August 16th. Also, Rightscale has a developer edition that can give you the opportunity to tryout their services.> Both RightScale and > Scalr are considered > cloud management tools and they work very well with Amazon Web > Services (EC2/S3/EBS...) > RightScale feature set is richer than Scalr. >Also, Scalr.net recently graduated from beta to production on August 1, 2009. Also, I wish that I would have known that one of the founders members, Alexey Kovalyov, resides in the Ukraine because I was there back in October 2008 and it would been a pleasure to meet him.> > You should keep in mind that Amazon is not the only kid in the game > (in the PaaS - platform > as a Service). There is also GoGrid and Rackspace (with their cloud > offering options). >http://www.gogrid.com/pricing/compare-gogrid-to-amazon-ec2.php> > Finally, there is a new breed of rails hosting solutions: Heroku and > EngineYard (Solo/Flex).Heroku has some very excellent hosting solutions from what I have heard from others and what appears on their site. Also, the hosting from what I hear is dead simple.> > They provide free trials of their services and a wide range of plans. > Heroku uses Amazon''s servers > while Engine Yard uses Joyent. > > If you use Aptana''s IDE for rails development, they also provide a > cloud hosting offering (AptanaCloud). > > So there are tons of options. The problem is that there is a wide > range of expertise required for > rails deployment. If you want to deal the least with server > configuration, I would strongly suggest > a service like Heroku (they even have github integration). I havent > used EngineYard''s but their > Solo offering seems quite good for development/testing as well. The > moment you need production-ready > features then you have to start paying for more in both Heroku/ > EngineYard''s offerings. > > - RicardoYes, I would agree with Ricardo in this regard but you want to limit your developing/testing to the local platform because some of these services have per/hour usage fees. The plan that I have with Rightscale has 15000 hours/per month for $500 which is great for deploying several applications per month. Thus, when I test a new application or updat an existing application, I tend to do the following: a) start the instance b) test the application c) stop the instance Note: The above doesn''t affect the following application because I tend to create a staging instance for testing both new and updates to existing applications. Good luck, -Conrad> > On Aug 15, 8:01 pm, Conrad Taylor <conra...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Jeff Pritchard < > > > > > > > > > > > > rails-mailing-l...-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > A search of this forum for "cloud" brought up a pretty anemic and > mostly > > > year or more old list of stuff. That was a bit of a surprise to me. > > > > > I''m interested in getting opinions on the easiest way to deploy a Rails > > > app to a well known (S3 or similar) "cloud" server. > > > > > It should be something with little or no "installation" or > > > "establishment" fees and no monthly fees...just the per/megabyte > traffic > > > fees. > > > > > Would be great if deployment was via capistrano, just like a VM or > > > dedicated server would be. > > > > > Has anyone made this cheap and easy yet? Or do you still have to roll > > > your own implementation using API''s that were designed to be general in > > > nature and thus requiring significant development effort to get it > > > deployed? > > > > > thanks, > > > jp > > > -- > > > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > > > I am using Rightscale and I''m very happy with the Rails integration. > BTW, > > Rightscale is a front-end to Amazon Services (i.e. EC2, S3, Cloudfront, > and > > so on). Also, it costs a bit more for their service in addition to > Amazon > > charges > > but it was well worth it for our business. This will be common with the > > other > > front-ends to Amazon. > > > > Furthermore, I''m very pleased with the ability to have better control as > to > > what''s > > going on with my server instances. Also, if you''re publishing a lot of > > media assets > > and the site has a great deal of traffic, then I would recommend having > some > > CDN functionality within your sites'' configuration. Hulu.com would be a > > very good > > example of the use of a CDN and Rails. > > > > When I was in Japan, I noticed that every Japanese site was extremely > fast > > being > > that my connection speed was 1 Giga bit per second. However, it was a > > sudden > > drop-off when accessing sites in the US that didn''t have a local CDN. > Thus, > > you should > > use a CDN where it makes sense for creating the best user experience. > > > > Next, I would first focus on building solid Rails website architecture > > before thinking about > > scaling a site that doesn''t exist by using the cloud. Once the site has > > been built, then > > you can make better decisions on how to properly scale your site. For > > examples, there are > > tools that can easily allow one to simulate N concurrent users across > > multiple servers > > > > Lastly, it doesn''t matter which option you select you''ll have to pay for > any > > high-traffic site > > that uses a lot of bandwidth. Thus, you may also want to take a look at > > Google App Engine. > > > > Good luck, > > > > -Conrad > > > > > > > > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 Aug 15, 8:45 pm, Jeff Pritchard <rails-mailing-l...-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> A search of this forum for "cloud" brought up a pretty anemic and mostly > year or more old list of stuff. That was a bit of a surprise to me. > > I''m interested in getting opinions on the easiest way to deploy a Rails > app to a well known (S3 or similar) "cloud" server.[...] You might be interested to check out Heroku. It doesn''t work for every use case, but if it works for you it''s lovely. It''s cloud-based Rails deployment made *very* simple. Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org