Hi, I realise that Windows is a poor platform and that Webrick is a development, not production, server. However, we have started seeing this crop up when perfectly simple page to page links are invoked... [2006-03-28 08:32:21] ERROR Errno::ECONNABORTED: Software caused connection abort /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/httpresponse.rb:324:in `write' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/httpresponse.rb:324:in `_write_data' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/httpresponse.rb:296:in `send_body_string' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/httpresponse.rb:187:in `send_body' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/httpresponse.rb:104:in `send_response' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/httpserver.rb:79:in `run' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/server.rb:173:in `start_thread' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/server.rb:162:in `start_thread' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/server.rb:95:in `start' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/server.rb:92:in `start' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/server.rb:23:in `start' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/server.rb:82:in `start' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rails-1.0.0/lib/webrick_server.rb:69:in `dispatch' Given the other problems that have been noted (and re-created by us) on Mac OS X... Is Ruby stable for production use? I see the wonder of Rails, there are lots of great ideas in it. However, I am a little nervous about the stability of the underlying language on the web. I understand that the Base Camp project supports 40,000 hits per day which is indicative of a decently sized project... how have they achieved stability? Our intention, in production, is to run Rails on Apache. Ideally this will be on Linux or Solaris 10 but there is a very high probability that customer's will force us to deploy to Windows 2003 Server. Is RoR going to be stable? Its performance on a per transaction basis is excellent but we need uptime and consistency as well. Anyone had any real production experiences, on Apache and especially on 2003 server? Sean.
on 2006-03-28 11:39
on 2006-03-28 15:46
There's plenty of people running Rails as a production platform - guys like Ezra have posted about his setup at Yakima Herald in great detail in the past - but I'm not aware of any high traffic Windows based sites out there. Many people (including myself) are using Windows laptops for development, but I haven't seen a lot of discussion of *high traffic* production sites using Windows. I run my dev/Windows apps under mongrel, which I've found highly reliable, but I'm generally not serving thousands of pages from it on the train in the mornings! Rails itself is very stable though, if you do your research on how to set it up and how it interacts with e.g. Apache or lighttpd. You should be able to find lots of info on running it under Linux or *BSD in the mailing list archives. Regards Dave M.
on 2006-03-28 16:39
Thanks for the info. Like most people, we've been running production Java and PHP systems here successfully on Linux - as you'd expect. I don't envisage the Windows deployments being high traffic through Rails - the transactional service processing will be done in Java services, Rails will be the web application part of the system, if that makes sense. Similarly the sort of deployments to Windows will be smaller scale than for a *nix based system. The problems that have been cropping up are on development machines. The error message I posted: [2006-03-28 08:32:21] ERROR Errno::ECONNABORTED: Software caused connection > abort crops up a lot on Windows (running Webrick, ruby/rails on Cygwin). It is not a high volume issue. I'll Google it to see if anyone else has seen this error message. It degrades pretty gracefully in that after a long delay the page actually loads. The long delay, however, could be embarassing in product demos (let alone in production). Thanks again. Sean.
on 2006-03-28 20:55
if I understand right and you're using Mac OS X, this could be the known bug with the broken Ruby that Apple ships with OS X. if so, here's your solution: http://hivelogic.com/articles/2005/12/01/ruby_rail... -- Giles B. www.gilesgoatboy.org
on 2006-03-28 21:04
Running rails on Apache should be similar in any OS. Apache is the same everywhere and has achieved stability on all platforms. It uses the same method of displaying rails apps everywhere and ruby itself is mature and stable. I honestly don't think there should be a problem whatever the OS is. Given that Win95 is not used. ;) On 3/28/06, Sean B. <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/httpresponse.rb:324:in > /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/webrick/server.rb:162:in > OS X... > to be stable? Its performance on a per transaction basis is excellent but we > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > email@example.com > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > --
on 2006-03-28 21:09
I use Mac OS X myself because, well, I only own Macs personally. The guys at work all use Windows or Linux because work doesn't own any Macs. I'll have a look at that link though. Cheers.
on 2006-03-28 21:11
I agree that Apache is Apache (although not as much on Windows as on *nix). I think the issues we had were to do with Webrick rather than Ruby or Rails. We have not tested Rails on Apache yet (early stages of development).
on 2006-03-29 08:56
Sean B. wrote: > crops up a lot on Windows (running Webrick, ruby/rails on Cygwin). Do not use Cygwin Ruby. It's full of hassles like that, plus it's significantly slower. Under Windows, use either One-Click Installer Ruby or Instant Rails. Best regards, Alex Verkhovsky