Are there any decent backends for rails 3? passenger is disqualified
because of it''s unfriendly install. I have a software distribution
system. I don''t compile software on production machines.
mongrel2 is disqualified because it won''t compile on *BSD, since
it insists on having sys/sendfile.h
Thanks.
Ken
--
I use the words you taught me. If they don''t mean anything any more,
teach me others. Or let me be silent.
Samuel Beckett (Clov, Endgame)
--
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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Kenneth Dunlap <kd-VmQCmMdMyN0AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Are there any decent backends for rails 3? passenger is disqualified > because of it''s unfriendly install. I have a software distribution > system. I don''t compile software on production machines. > mongrel2 is disqualified because it won''t compile on *BSD, since > it insists on having sys/sendfile.h > > Thanks. > > KenI''ve used nginx and lighttpd without any issues, no idea if there are pre-compiled ports for BSD however. I found the passenger install to be quite friendly. The owner/maintainer goes above and beyond to assist with issues. -- Greg Donald destiney.com | gregdonald.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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@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 Sep 10, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Kenneth Dunlap wrote:> Are there any decent backends for rails 3? passenger is disqualified > because of it''s unfriendly install. I have a software distribution > system. I don''t compile software on production machines. > mongrel2 is disqualified because it won''t compile on *BSD, since > it insists on having sys/sendfile.h > > Thanks. > > Ken >I have apache with passenger, nginx with passenger, and mongrel running on FreeBSD 7.3 and MACOSX 10.6.4. I didn''t have any compile problems with any of them that I recall. I am in the process of phasing out the mongrels I am running in favor of nginx with passenger. The maintainer for passenger has been very helpful when I had a problem. The apache and passenger combination was a very easy install. Nginx with passenger was a little more involved but once again not very difficult. You need to be careful to copy all the files in the gem to your production machine, including the support programs which are built when compiling passenger for a particular web server. Kim -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On Friday 10 September 2010, Kenneth Dunlap wrote:> Are there any decent backends for rails 3?Yes: passenger and mongrel are very decent backends.> passenger is > disqualified because of it''s unfriendly install. I have a software > distribution system. I don''t compile software on production > machines. > mongrel2 is disqualified because it won''t compile on *BSD, since > it insists on having sys/sendfile.hAt least on Debian Linux there are binary packages for passenger (libapache2-mod-passenger) as well as mongrel. Apparently you are on a *BSD-based system. In case you haven''t looked already, make sure there are no binary packages readily available for your systems. Consider building the necessary packages yourself and integrate them with your distribution system. From your question I assume that you don''t yet have much experience with deploying rails applications. If this is the case, I''d recommend using passenger in favor of mongrel and the more esoteric options. It is easier to get support and it is easier in production as there aren''t as many (different) processes you need to monitor. -- If I misinterpreted your question, well, go ahead and use your experience. Michael -- Michael Schuerig mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Quoth Michael Schuerig (michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org):> On Friday 10 September 2010, Kenneth Dunlap wrote: > > Are there any decent backends for rails 3? > > Yes: passenger and mongrel are very decent backends. > > > passenger is > > disqualified because of it''s unfriendly install. I have a software > > distribution system. I don''t compile software on production > > machines. > > mongrel2 is disqualified because it won''t compile on *BSD, since > > it insists on having sys/sendfile.h > > At least on Debian Linux there are binary packages for passenger > (libapache2-mod-passenger) as well as mongrel. Apparently you are on a > *BSD-based system. In case you haven''t looked already, make sure there > are no binary packages readily available for your systems. Consider > building the necessary packages yourself and integrate them with your > distribution system. > > >From your question I assume that you don''t yet have much experience with > deploying rails applications. If this is the case, I''d recommend using > passenger in favor of mongrel and the more esoteric options. It is > easier to get support and it is easier in production as there aren''t as > many (different) processes you need to monitor. -- If I misinterpreted > your question, well, go ahead and use your experience. >Alas, after finally getting passenger built and disted to a test machine, the process spawner segfaults in libpthread. As for mongrel2, it won''t compile on FreeBSD. My production system is currently running apache/mongrel happily enough, but I was hoping to use ruby 1.9.2 when I switch to rails 3, and mongrel version 1 doesn''t play well with ruby19. Ken -- I use the words you taught me. If they don''t mean anything any more, teach me others. Or let me be silent. Samuel Beckett (Clov, Endgame) -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 11 Sep 2010, at 15:26, Kenneth Dunlap wrote:> Quoth Michael Schuerig (michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org): >> On Friday 10 September 2010, Kenneth Dunlap wrote: >>> Are there any decent backends for rails 3? >> >> Yes: passenger and mongrel are very decent backends. >> >>> passenger is >>> disqualified because of it''s unfriendly install. I have a software >>> distribution system. I don''t compile software on production >>> machines. >>> mongrel2 is disqualified because it won''t compile on *BSD, since >>> it insists on having sys/sendfile.h >> >> At least on Debian Linux there are binary packages for passenger >> (libapache2-mod-passenger) as well as mongrel. Apparently you are on a >> *BSD-based system. In case you haven''t looked already, make sure there >> are no binary packages readily available for your systems. Consider >> building the necessary packages yourself and integrate them with your >> distribution system. >> >> >> From your question I assume that you don''t yet have much experience with >> deploying rails applications. If this is the case, I''d recommend using >> passenger in favor of mongrel and the more esoteric options. It is >> easier to get support and it is easier in production as there aren''t as >> many (different) processes you need to monitor. -- If I misinterpreted >> your question, well, go ahead and use your experience. > > Alas, after finally getting passenger built and disted to a test > machine, the process spawner segfaults in libpthread.I know there''s some issue with Passenger and OpenBSD''s pthreads, but it''s supposed to work on FreeBSD, according to their docs, so I think the Passenger devs would appreciate a bug report[1] about that. Out of interest, were you using the FreeBSD rubygem-passenger port (which seems to be actively maintained[2]), or hand-rolling something?> As for mongrel2, > it won''t compile on FreeBSD. My production system is currently running > apache/mongrel happily enough, but I was hoping to use ruby 1.9.2 > when I switch to rails 3, and mongrel version 1 doesn''t play well > with ruby19.Unicorn[3] has been getting some attention lately (i.e. Twitter and GitHub are using it). It''s 1.9-compatible, and I remember seeing some FreeBSD-specific options in its config, so it could be worth a look. Chris [1] http://code.google.com/p/phusion-passenger/issues/list [2] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/www/rubygem-passenger/ [3] http://unicorn.bogomips.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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Quoth Chris Mear (chrismear-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org):> On 11 Sep 2010, at 15:26, Kenneth Dunlap wrote: > > > Quoth Michael Schuerig (michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org): > >> On Friday 10 September 2010, Kenneth Dunlap wrote: > >>> Are there any decent backends for rails 3? > >> > >> Yes: passenger and mongrel are very decent backends. > >> > >>> passenger is > >>> disqualified because of it''s unfriendly install. I have a software > >>> distribution system. I don''t compile software on production > >>> machines. > >>> mongrel2 is disqualified because it won''t compile on *BSD, since > >>> it insists on having sys/sendfile.h > >> > >> At least on Debian Linux there are binary packages for passenger > >> (libapache2-mod-passenger) as well as mongrel. Apparently you are on a > >> *BSD-based system. In case you haven''t looked already, make sure there > >> are no binary packages readily available for your systems. Consider > >> building the necessary packages yourself and integrate them with your > >> distribution system. > >> > >> > >> From your question I assume that you don''t yet have much experience with > >> deploying rails applications. If this is the case, I''d recommend using > >> passenger in favor of mongrel and the more esoteric options. It is > >> easier to get support and it is easier in production as there aren''t as > >> many (different) processes you need to monitor. -- If I misinterpreted > >> your question, well, go ahead and use your experience. > > > > Alas, after finally getting passenger built and disted to a test > > machine, the process spawner segfaults in libpthread. > > I know there''s some issue with Passenger and OpenBSD''s pthreads, but it''s supposed to work on FreeBSD, according to their docs, so I think the Passenger devs would appreciate a bug report[1] about that.This was on a NetBSD 5 virtual running under Xen.> > Out of interest, were you using the FreeBSD rubygem-passenger port (which seems to be actively maintained[2]), or hand-rolling something?Downloaded as source, compiled under NetBSD 5, disted to test machine.> > > As for mongrel2, > > it won''t compile on FreeBSD. My production system is currently running > > apache/mongrel happily enough, but I was hoping to use ruby 1.9.2 > > when I switch to rails 3, and mongrel version 1 doesn''t play well > > with ruby19. > > Unicorn[3] has been getting some attention lately (i.e. Twitter and GitHub are using it). It''s 1.9-compatible, and I remember seeing some FreeBSD-specific options in its config, so it could be worth a look.Ah! I hadn''t heard of that one. I''ll investigate on Monday. Thanks much! Ken -- I use the words you taught me. If they don''t mean anything any more, teach me others. Or let me be silent. Samuel Beckett (Clov, Endgame) -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 12 sep, 00:06, Kenneth Dunlap <k...-VmQCmMdMyN0AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > > As for mongrel2, > > > it won''t compile on FreeBSD. My production system is currently running > > > apache/mongrel happily enough, but I was hoping to use ruby 1.9.2 > > > when I switch to rails 3, and mongrel version 1 doesn''t play well > > > with ruby19. > > > Unicorn[3] has been getting some attention lately (i.e. Twitter and GitHub are using it). It''s 1.9-compatible, and I remember seeing some FreeBSD-specific options in its config, so it could be worth a look. > > Ah! I hadn''t heard of that one. I''ll investigate on Monday. Thanks > much!Happy Unicorn + nginx customer here. Rock solid. Have been using the combination for about half a year now and hasn''t skipped a beat. mongrel2 is only a few months old; there''s no way I''d consider letting it within 5 miles of a production server. Cheers, Wincent -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@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.