search for: fooapp

...cies.rb:123:in `const_missing'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-1.3.1/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:131:in `const_missing'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-1.3.1/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:133:in `const_missing'' /home/foo_fighter/public_html/fooapp/config/../script/backgroundrb/../../config/../app/models/user.rb:3 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-1.3.1/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:140:in `load'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-1.3.1/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:56:in `require_or_load'' /usr/lib/r...

If I''m running two rails apps on the same server using Unicorn, I have to run two instances of Unicorn, right? If so, then here''s a place where passenger might win in terms of memory use, as the rails code will be loaded into memory twice, right? I''m still probably going with Unicorn, but just exploring this first. Thanks, John

...han it solves. Remember, this distro is about stability. Changing naming/numbering schemes in a way that breaks scripts is about as far from stability as you can get. [*] With every release from CentOS 3.1 through 6.7, there was always a series of mailing list questions of the same basic form: ?FooApp is only certified for CentOS 6.4, but CentOS 6.7 is out, and the vendor won?t update the certification, so how do I keep my servers on CentOS 6.4?? Just as there is no CentOS 7.2, only 7, there was no CentOS 6.4, only 6. The new scheme tries to make that clear. It would actually *be* clear if t...

On 12/07/2015 06:31 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > On 07/12/15 04:11, Greg Lindahl wrote: >> Oh, wait: CentOS, love it or leave it. > I hope its not that drastic! As a member of the user community, it's hard to see it any other way. I want to be fair to everyone, so I'll acknowledge that Greg was making an ass of himself. He said so, himself. I also think that the question