similar to: x_send_file sends a 1 byte file

forgive me if this has been resolved already... I have an app that is using sendfile to return large files to customers. We can''t use regular Apache to handle this static content since the files are what the customers are paying for - so it wouldn''t be cool for anyone else to get access to them. The issue is that the mongrel mem footprint gets bloated when the files are

Hello, I''m running a Rails application which must sort and manipulate a lot of data which are loaded in memory. The Rails app runs on 2 mongrel processes. When I first load the app, both are 32Mb in memory. After some days, both are between 200Mb and 300Mb. My question is : is there some kind of garbage collector in Mongrel? I never see the two Mongrel processes memory footprint

I''m trying to sent a file to the iphone (which requires byte-range request support) using the rails send_file method. However, this fails, I think because of mongrel. I think so because if I send the iphone a file handled by nginx, it plays it fine. But then when I serve the file with rails the iphone can''t play it. Any ideas? Alex

I heard about a new mongrel plugin or version that''s single threaded and uses non-blocking IO with events. It''s called something like "swifty fly". Anyone have a link for it? Thanks.

Does someone know how to tell mongrel_rails to read the public/system/maintenance.html file? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Hi everyone. Does anyone have any preferences or ideas for an interface for SSL certificates, both client-side and server-side? At present, the only interface is EventMachine::Connection#start_tls, which uses a built-in self-signed cert on the server side. On the cilent side, it accepts any well-formed cert (that is, it doesn''t check that the remote cert is signed by a trusted authority).

My production server is using mongrel_rails on Ubuntu linux. With Firefox I can reach my production server with the URL: www.mydomain.com:3000/ but I can''t reach my production server with the URL www.mydomain.com/ Is there a way to configure mongrel so that I can reach my production server with the URL www.mydomain.com? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

So here''s a random question: if a (Ruby) multi-threaded rails server could exist (bug free), would it be faster than using a mongrel cluster? (I.e. 10 mongrel processes versus 10 Ruby threads). I''m not sure if it would. RAM it might save, though. Any thoughts? -Roger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Can anyone tell me how to get x_send_file working with mongrel 1.1.1 and apache 2.2? I''ve installed the mod_xsendfile apache module from http://tn123.ath.cx/mod_xsendfile/ and it works fine serving content from a PHP script, but I can''t get it to work with my single Mongrel instance and ProxyPass. I''m using the following Apache configuration: <VirtualHost *:80>

Hi, I have read many articles on the net today about configuring Ruby on Rails on a Windows server. But there doesn''t seem to a one solution for all on how to configure a new Ruby on Rails server. So I can use some advise with this. I am using a Windows 2003 server and don''t get many request a day. But most of the request are quite heavy. The main focus is on optimizing the

I have a periodically_call_remote call in a partial running at 0.20 times a second. <%= periodically_call_remote(:update => ''ack_distance_output'', :frequency => 0.2, :url=>{:action => :ackAdjustDistance}) %> the action looks like this def ackAdjustDistance @calMessage = Calibration.getMessage

Hi, I''ve got an app which will only be dealing with a few requests a minute for most of the time, then will shoot up to a continuous 20 req/s for an hour at a time. We''ll potentially be running a lot of instances of this app on the same server. Is there any way to have additional instances of Mongrel be started when the existing instance(s) stopping being able to handle

I read this in a previous post ( http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/2006-December/002354.html) .... First, Mongrel accepts remote clients and creates one Thread for each request. Mongrel also enforces a single request/response using Connect:close headers because Ruby only supports 1024 files (so far). If Mongrel doesn''t do this then people like yourself can write a simple

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

Sorry, for the re-post, but I''m new to the mailing list and wanted to bring back up and old topic I saw in the archives. http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/2008-February/004991.html I think a patch to delay garbage collection and run it later is pretty important for high performance web applications. I do understand the trade-offs of having explicit vs. implicit garbage

Hi, my mongrel has crashed with following errors in the logfile: ** Starting Rails with development environment... ** Rails loaded. ** Loading any Rails specific GemPlugins ** Signals ready. TERM => stop. USR2 => restart. INT => stop (no restart). ** Rails signals registered. HUP => reload (without restart). It might not work well. ** Mongrel 1.1.3 available at 0.0.0.0:3000 **

Guys, Just for fun, I tried to see (I know, a silly way to test it) how much overhead we have calling the C functions of the extensions. the benchmark script and the results: http://pastie.caboo.se/128646 The naive C extension: http://pastie.caboo.se/128647 I compared 1.8.6 (VC6 and mingw builds) against a fresh checkout of ruby trunk. What I understand from that is 1.9 is slower than 1.8

Hi I''m currently trying to use X-Sendfile to take some load off my rails app, unfortunately in my development environment mongrel is happily passing through the x-sendfile header, presumably for the (non- existant) proxy to handle the header. Is there some way to make mongrel process the x-sendfile header itself? Thanks jebw

Okay, I got off my duff this week and have been finishing Mongrel support for IOWA. I now have two handlers that I need to test. One is similar to the Rails handler, passing request handling to IOWA threads in the same process, and the other allows one or more Mongrel processes to pass requests to one or more separate IOWA processes, with session affinity. Is there any set of standard sorts of

I''m building an application for a company that has thousands of clients, and for each client there will a set of documents that are private to that client. Rails makes it easy, of course, to show the list of documents on a per-client basis, using acts_as_authenticated and using current_user as part of the find any time a document list is displayed. The part for which I''m looking