similar to: ANNC: qrp - queueing reverse proxy

I''m using a cluster of mongrels behind an apache 1.3 proxy pass. I''ve been passing the request to pen, which in turn balances the cluster of mongrels. Now, I''d like to be able to use a different server to send the static files created by the rails application, so I tried to replace pen with nginx. Everything seems to work fine except the environment variable REMOTE_ADDR.

Hi guys, I''ve been chasing a problem in my web-stack: Lighttpd -> Mongrel -> Rails, and found a problem with the interaction of Lighttpd and Mongrel. If a request takes more than 5 seconds, Lighty will retry it - and then the requests / responses get mixed up in Lighty and it returns a bad response to the client. Not good. I''m convinced that the problem is

Hi, I could never find out what''s the difference between nginx and mongrel. All my searches say "nginx is a HTTP server ..." and "Mongrel is a fast HTTP library and server for Ruby....". For me they both mean "...HTTP server...". I kept up with this question for some time till I came across this santence from the guys at Friend for Sale: -----------------

We have a load balancer sending requests to one of X boxes and one of N mongrel processes on that box. Since each mongrel processes is multi-threaded but it has a mutex around the section that calls rails, we end up with several requests queued up waiting when they could have gone to another box with a free process. For example, boxA, and boxB. boxA has mongrels 1 through 10 boxB has

Hi folks. Using mongrel_rails and the mongrel_cluster capistrano recipes, I often encounter a situation where some of the mongrel processes don''t die in time to be restarted. The output of capistrano will tell me something like "mongrel on port 8001 is already up", but that''s only because capistrano/mongrel_rails failed to take it down in the first place. The solution

If this has already been covered, please point me to that (I didn''t find anything in my searches)... We are using F5 BigIP LTM load balancers. They have many pools of Mongrels they load balance across, and I of course want the F5 to know when a Mongrel goes down or is unavailable, etc. To do that, I need to have an F5 health monitor for HTTP make a request to the Mongrel. We do this

I''ve been meaning to test this setup somewhere for a while, but never got the right app/(real) traffic/hardware to do it with. So maybe somebody can try it out and let us know if this works... It''s for applications running the same code/data on a cluster of machines, so this doesn''t apply to the majority of low-traffic sites out there. The goal is to avoid having to

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

Hello Mongrels, Building on the last messages about Fastthread, can we get a detailed survey of the different ways people are deploying their applications? It will help with near-future Mongrel development. Please include the following things: * Framework, if any (Camping, Merb, Rails, Nitro, Ramaze, IOWA, Rack...) * Mongrel version * Mongrel handlers used (rails, dirhandler, camping,

I''m looking for the most reliable setup for Mongrel. Reliable meaning avoiding things like sending too many requests to a single mongrel process, or sending requests to a mongrel process that has hung for some reason. The handler will most likely be rails, but it might be a custom handler. SSL is also a requirement, which limits the options a bit but it can''t be done away

Hi mongrelians, I found myself with an unloaded full production server recently which presented an opportunity to run some performance tests against Mongrel and nginx. I thought this list might have some interest in the results of my tinkering! I actually ran two sets of studies, and Wayne Seguin kindly provided a lot of guidance and support in getting them running. Thanks Wayne! Also,

Hi everybody, I have installed mongrel and mongrel cluster in a new linux box .... at the end of the day I was able to lunch mongrel (mongrel_rails start -e production) and all is working fine with. However, when I tried to set a mongrel cluster the command mongrel_rails cluster::start get the following output : starting port 8000 starting port 8001 starting port 8002 But when I lunched the

Hi everybody, I''ve been trying to setup a Ruby on Rails application on a Ubuntu Feisty machine and I''ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Nginx and mongrel_cluster weren''t working. The setup was correct (based on some tutorials found on the internet), but there weren''t any pid files for the mongrels started. In case anybody else has experienced the

Hello all. I too found out that I sometimes have some action that can take up to 10 seconds in my rails application. I''ve read all arguments Zed made about polling/and inbox strategies, and I think I just can''t work around my feeling that a "wrong" request that takes up too much time should be able to lock subsequent requests in mongrels queue. That''s what

We have still having problems with Ferret dying on us regularly with the error message: >> ferret server error IO Error occured at <except.c>:93 in xraiseError occured in fs_store.c:127 - fs_each doing ''each'' in /var/www/web1/oms/current/script/../config/../index/production/band/20070805130005: <Too many open files> << We are running Ferret as a

I''ve posted this to rails-deployment as well. I have to administer a medium size rails app (1''5 million requests each day), recently I''ve switched from lighttpd + fcgi to apache + mongrel. In the following lines I am going to describe the platform: All machines are running Debian Etch, with 4 gb ram and dual core intel32 processors. Web server runs debian''s

Lets say you have a site that is serving, oh, around 100k unique visitors a day (plain ole'' browser requests) - plus probably ~ 40k uniques to feeds. Assume this site is 90% read like most of the web, so the traffic looks like your typical news or portal site. There are two web boxes behind a hardware load balancer, each doing apache 2.2.3 -> mongrel_proxy_balancer -> mongrel

After reading the digital shortcut and the documentation on the web site I''m confused. Which one should I use? pen, balance or nginx ? I don''t want to use a behemoth like appache and ssl is not needed so it reduces my choice to those three only.... What are the pros and cons of each? I don''t have much money, so the less ressources I use the better it is for me.... As

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

This may be a nginx issue more than a mongrel one but I though folks in this list might be interested. Anyway, I have a mongrel_cluster with 2 front nginx workers as proxy. I recently replaced apache/mod_proxy for nginx, and I wasn''t aware of the 60 seconds default proxy_read_timeout so I went a head and tried to run a process via http GET. Normally because of the 60 seconds the GET I