similar to: how many mongrels to start

<% for demand in @demands %> <% cache(:action => ''list'',:part => article.id) do -%> <%= render :partial => ''article''} %> <% end %> <% end %> Under webrick,the time that list rendering costs will be very soon,but under apache2.2+mongrel_cluster, the rendering still takes a long time- which occupies about 95% of the

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

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, 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:

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

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 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

Howdy Folks, This release is after painstaking analysis of a memory leak that was reported by Bradley Taylor, reduced by myself, and then fixed after much work. You should all thank Bradley for finding the bizarre fix. It turns out the Ruby has a memory leak when you use pretty much any thread locking primitive other than Sync (Mutex, Monitor, etc.): http://pastie.caboo.se/10194 The fix (for

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

I really like the idea of using Mongrel. But reading the FAQ, I noticed something that might be an issue. It stated: "Ruby on Rails is not thread safe so there is a synchronized block around the calls to Dispatcher.dispatch. This means that everything is threaded right before and right after Rails runs. While Rails is running there is only one controller in operation at a time." So

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

Hi all, I''ve been spending quite a lot of time trying to install a decent RoR server on my dedicated server (Ubuntu 6.06 LTS), and now, everything works. However, the performances are not really what I had expected... I would like to know what you think about it. Here is my config: 2GHz VIA proc, 1Gb RAM, SATA-II HD. I have apt-got ruby 1.8.4, mysql5 and installed rails 1.1.4 by

Hi all, I encounter timeout errors during file uploads in my Rails application. I think the problem may be in the Mongrel configuration. Here is my setup: * Load balancer (Cisco CSM, my provider''s Catalyst 6509) * Apache 2.2.3 with mod_proxy_balancer * Mongrel 0.3.13.3 * Rails 1.1.6 * Ruby 1.8.4 * MySQL 5.0.22 * file_column I host an application in which users may upload medium files

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

Is this the behavior that supposedly indicates a problem with a particular action? Mongrel in development mode randomly hangs on random actions. Further requests cause USR1 logs like: Mon Sep 18 13:04:03 PDT 2006: 0 threads sync_waiting for /, 2 still active in mongrel. Mon Sep 18 13:07:52 PDT 2006: 1 threads sync_waiting for /public/stylesheets/table.css, 3 still active in mongrel. Mon Sep 18

This week we have started one new project with Ruby on Rails as primary framework. My first task was to prepare runtime environment for it on one of our development servers. When I have tried to research how people doing it, I noted that there is no information about how to deploy rails application with nginx as frontend and what is performance of such solution. Before blindly make any

Hi All I was wondering if I run multiple mongrels from same application root (one physical path) on the same machine is it safe as far as logging is concerned. I mean won''t there be race conditions or file locks and out of sequence logging statements? TIA -daya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello all, I''m new to Mongrel and am very impressed with what I see so far. This thing beats FastCGI hands down, and is even simpler to use than SCGI. Great job Zed! Thanks for all the hard work. I am a bit surprised at the memory usage patterns though. I''m not sure if I''m doing something wrong (most likely I am), or if this is a problem with the app I''m

What''s a rule of thumb for guesstimating how many Mongrels to use in a cluster for an app? I have an app that gets about 5000 unique visitors per day. I figured I''d give it plenty of Mongrels -- twenty to be specific. After running out of memory and hitting the swap periodically, I scaled it back to five and it still seems to serve up visitors fine. So, is there some super-secret

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