similar to: Why the render speed is still so slow under apache?

Hey all Im working on improving the speed of my application. Ive taken on board everything that has been said on this forum so far, im using httperf to benchmark and try to improve performance. However, I have some question marks over how best to go about improving performance in certain areas.... With no caching or such like deployed the application runs at an rather slow 35 - 38 req/s. A

Hey all First off, ive just switched to using mongrel_cluster and pound - its working a treat! Its far far faster than fast-cgi: operations that took a few seconds on fcgi now are almost instant with mongrel. Excellent! However, I''ve been trying to decide how best to utilise my equipment most effectively. I have a dual pro 3Ghz Xenon with 2GB RAM, and the server will be running a few

is there a way to determine how best to determine the number of mongrel processes to start? Right now i am running 2 in production but I see some people run about 8 or so. What is the cutoff and determening factor for this ? thanks adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I''m trying to do some initial benchmarking of our setup, mainly just to establish baselines. I''m essentially using the process Zed outlines in a previous message: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/2006-May/000200.html What I''m running into is that Mongrel appears only half as fast as Apache when serving a small static HTML file. If I then add in Apache with

Hey all I am working with a technology standard (specific to the commercial print industry) by which each element within the workflow has bi- directional HTTP messaging. As each side needs a http server, I thought I could either: a) use a gem plugin to modify the behavior of mongrel b) subclass Mongrel::HttpHandler In short, its xml messaging between two points; each with a HTTP client

Hey All, I just wanted to get other peoples take on problems when running merb in production? Just as Rails used to do, the mongrels tend to get heavy/unresponsive over time so need a good kicking by a watcher daemon like god or monit. However, I have had serious problems getting God to restart the process, as the "merb -k <port>" command doesnt appear to work reliably

I''m proud to announce the official Mongrel certification program: http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/certified.html Move quick, seats are filling fast for the RubyConf courses. -- Zed A. Shaw http://www.zedshaw.com/ http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/ http://www.lingr.com/room/3yXhqKbfPy8 -- Come get help.

Hello all, I''m attempting to test/tune a mongrel cluster according to the tuning instructions on the mongrel site (using httperf). Anecdotally, the site itself ''feels'' snappy, but testing it with httperf reveals what appears to be terrible throughput. I''m kind of at a loss to describe the results, and was hoping someone could verify that I''m testing

Hello Folks, This is the big release of Mongrel that''s been in the works for a while now (well, like a week). It is chock full of changes and features, but mostly it syncs up the Win32 side of things, and validates that Edge Rails works without problems. It also features a more extensive and useful example of the GemPlugins called mongrel_config. First the usual stuff for people

Hi, Thanks Zed - this is very interesting. One item in particular caught my eye: Does anyone on this list have any comments or validation that Rails 1.2.1 is 2-4 times as slow as Rails 1.1.6? Topfunky provided a link that purports what looks like really horrible performance and memory characteristics for Rails 1.2.1, even v. 1.1.6:

I tried benchmarking the same site behind an NGINX proxy with both fastcgi and mongrel, and for some reason mongrel is performing pretty poorly in comparison. Any idea what I might be doing wrong? Here''s my benchmarks for 1 fcgi: Server Software: nginx/0.4.0 Server Hostname: eship.com.br Server Port: 80 Document Path: / Document Length: 95

Hi all, My environment is ruby-1.8.4, rails 1.2.2, mongrel 1.0.1, linux 2.6. Now, i have a problem on memory leaks with mongrel. My site is running 5 mongrel processes on a 2G RAM machine, the memory of each process grows from about 20M to about 250M, but it never recover to the initial 20M, so i had to restart the mongrel processes once per day. The load is about 1M hits per day. Waiting for

Hello Zed ! I''ve experimented a simple but limited performance tweak in the mongrel rails loader. With the following apache 2.2 mod proxy loadbalancer setup : # Redirect all non-static requests to cluster RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}/%{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteRule ^/(.*)$ balancer://mongrel_cluster%{REQUEST_URI} [P,QSA,L] We can assume that mongrel is called only when the

I''m running on a brand new MacBook Pro with a relatively clean working set. using Mongrel in production mode on port 3000. The home page does not hit the database and I''m getting: Processing HomeController#index (for 127.0.0.1 at 2006-06-29 14:59:02) [GET] Session ID: e11f7df52bffff304ca7c88e672ef71a Parameters: {"action"=>"index",

I''ve been trying to track down the culprit of erratic behaviour and crashes on my production server (which is split into a number of Xen instances), so set up a staging server so that I could really try to get to the bottom of it. The staging server (also split with Xen) is set up pretty much identically as far as the mongrel_cluster server is concerned (the production box has two

Hi mongrel-users, This is my first post, so I''m not sure if it''s been asked before, but I can''t find an answer anywhere. If I have one rails application running, one processor I''m running it on, and mongrel is multi-threaded, why should I have more than one mongrel running? Everyone seems to agree on 3-5 mongrels per rails app, but why? I must be

Hi list, I''m seeing a couple of issues with Mongrel. I''m running FreeBSD 6.1 and have previously been told that there are known conflicts between this and Mongrel, yet I hope these issues will be resolved with time. I''m overloading Mongrel with httperf on my local workstation. Mongrel is started directly with the mongrel_rails command and there is only one mongrel

I''ve liked the scgi runner ever since it came out. I like the way it''scontrolled, the way it''s clusterable, and the fact that it runs onwin32 platforms so easily. Now it''s May 2006, and the scgi runner hasn''t changed since October,and now we have mongrel. I keep seeing hints of clustering in mongrel,as well. I just downloaded the win32 installer for

Hi- We just finished our app and I tested for performance with httperf. Our setup is browser -> apache2.2-> mod_poxy balancer-> mongrel cluster -> 3 mongrel servers. I have noticed that the total request per second is is about 7.5. When I increase the no of mongrel to 5, it inches up to 8 req/s. My question is how bad or good this number is? We are on a old dell 2400 machine

Hi, I made an interesting observation using webservers (not just mongrel) under red hat enterprise linux ES release 4 (Nahant Update 5). Maybe this is helpful or somebody with deeper networking expertise can comment on this. Once client said that 1-2% of the response of our server were unacceptably slow (really huge 3s-21s). So I did more ab and httperf tests and notice that very few