Forum: Ruby on Rails Why not mod_ruby?

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Hans-eric G. (Guest)
on 2006-04-27 17:27
Hi!

I've understood that the mod_ruby apache module is not recommended for
running Ruby on Rails applications. But I haven't found any information
as to why that is so. Please enlighten me. And could you point me to the
(currently) prefered production environment. (That can handle both RoR
and PHP sites).

Thank you and best regards

Hans-Eric Grönlund
Charlie B. (Guest)
on 2006-04-27 17:39
(Received via mailing list)
The "prefered" way is to run lighty with fast_cgi support.  I currently
run Apache2 with fcgi and have no problems.

Charlie B.
www.recentrambles.com
Tom A. (Guest)
on 2006-04-27 17:50
(Received via mailing list)
The reason mod_ruby isn't recommended is that it is very, very, very,
very
slow. Simple as that.
Ezra Z. (Guest)
on 2006-04-27 19:40
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 27, 2006, at 6:27 AM, Hans-Eric Grönlund wrote:

> Thank you and best regards
>
> Hans-Eric Grönlund
>
> --


With mod_ruby you can only run one rails app in one apache install.
Because mod_ruby embeds a ruby interpreter inside of the apache
process. So more then one rails app and they would step on each
other. But mod_ruby is not that bad for web sites built with ruby but
not rails. I have a few sites where I can use .rhtml and .rb files
and they are executed by apache as ruby files. FOr sopme dead simple
sites this is a nice lighweight way to go. But for rails apps
mod_ruby leaves a lot to be desired.

Cheers-
-Ezra
Hans-eric G. (Guest)
on 2006-04-28 00:45
Charlie B. wrote:
> The "prefered" way is to run lighty with fast_cgi support.  I currently
> run Apache2 with fcgi and have no problems.

ligthy, is that lighttp?
James L. (Guest)
on 2006-04-28 00:49
(Received via mailing list)
On 4/27/06, Hans-Eric Grönlund <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Charlie B. wrote:
> > The "prefered" way is to run lighty with fast_cgi support.  I currently
> > run Apache2 with fcgi and have no problems.
>
> ligthy, is that lighttp?

Yes.  It's referred to as "Lighty" on the main site.
http://www.lighttpd.net/
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2006-05-04 03:27
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 27, 2006, at 6:49 AM, Tom A. wrote:

>> Hi! I've understood that the mod_ruby apache module is not
>> recommended for running Ruby on Rails applications. But I haven't
>> found any information as to why that is so. Please enlighten me.
>> And could you point me to the (currently) prefered production
>> environment. (That can handle both RoR and PHP sites).
>
> The reason mod_ruby isn't recommended is that it is very, very,
> very, very slow. Simple as that.

No, it isn't.  Maybe when Rails runs atop it, but not in general.

--
Eric H. - removed_email_address@domain.invalid - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.