Right now the easiest way to run Rails is in combination with Mongrel.
However, it may not be a good idea to expose Mongrel directly to the
outside world in a high-load production environment. In-addition,
Mongrel_cluster + proxy + load balancer have to be used even for a
single server deployment making the unified setup more complicated than
needs be.
Today, we released LiteSpeed Web Server 2.2 with major enhancement on
Rails configuration. With 2.2 release, you only need to tell LSWS the
Rail application’s root directory and URL bind paths. LSWS will take
care of everything else. No more manual configuring of FCGI, 404
handler/rewrite rules, proxy, load balancing, and etc.
This is great news for the Rails community. I know I have been itching
to have a more streamlined rails install and run-time procedure.
Frankly, the current methods just add layers and layers of latency.
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 17:12 -0400, George W. wrote:
Rails configuration. With 2.2 release, you only need to tell LSWS the
Rail application’s root directory and URL bind paths. LSWS will take
care of everything else. No more manual configuring of FCGI, 404
handler/rewrite rules, proxy, load balancing, and etc.
We believe we have created the easiest way to deploy Rails in a
production level environment with a track-record for scalability and
reliability.
Good work George, I actually really like litespeed.
One thing you might want to look at is a set of instructions on how this
integrates with capistrano. That’s currently the big motivator for lots
of deployments today, and it’s not too clear how your control panel
integrates with command line operations from capistrano.
I believe you’re absolutely right. After reading your post, it took
me about 30 minutes to get this whole thing installed and my rForum
install running on litespeed and all I did was just followed the wiki
link that was posted.
I am truly impressed. Now only if I could get that dang plugin to stop
raping my rForum’s name-space I’d be a happy camper. Alas, not all
things are meant to deliver on their promises (unlike litespeed I
suppose)
Finally… something which actually works as advertised! WHAT A CONCEPT!
Very nice, I saw LiteSpeed a little while ago as an alternative and
have been really impressed with it so far. We’re definitely planning
on using it in production when we launch.
production level environment with a track-record for scalability and
link that was posted.
-A
Amr,
Thank you for your praise.
Once you get familiar with LiteSpeed and have the infrastructure ready,
deploying a new Rails application should take about one minute, we
believe.
Unfortunately, LiteSpeed buffer the whole request before forwarding it
to backend Rails dispatcher, so “upload progress bar” does not work with
LiteSpeed.
On the other hand, I think one upload session will tie up one valuable
Rails dispatcher, if the upload takes long time, it will became a
serious scalability issue. Number of users can be served is limited by
number of backend Rails dispatchers.
I’m not very well versed in Litespeed but from what I read this would
make
my life easier at deploying my apps. Since I’m on a small budget will
this
new development work in the free version? What will I be really missing
from
the paid version?
Yes, the new feature is available in the free version. The main
difference between the free and paid version is the scalability, free
version can take 300 concurrent connections, paid version is unlimited.
Paid version is faster than free version.
More details is available at http://www.litespeedtech.com/products/webserver/editions/
I think it will be good for litespeed business and ruby adoption (in
corporate) if a win32 build was released, beleive it or not I am yet to
come
across a fortune 500 corporation in my 10 year career
that doesn’t force their developers to use Windows platform, and
Google is an exception.
Absolutely, that’s the next thing on our to-do list. We will have our
LiteSpeed Capistrano integration guide line on our Wiki soon. It should
be very easy actually.
Please stay tuned.
George:
I’m definitely interested in trying your setup. Any estimate on
when your Capistrano integration guide will be online?
Are there any issues running LiteSpeed along side Apache,
specifically 1.3. I would like to do the majority of my web
development in RoR - but I need to continue offering cPanel
to my customers which is only Apache1.3 compatible.
Good work George, I actually really like litespeed.
Thanks!
One thing you might want to look at is a set of instructions on how this
integrates with capistrano. That’s currently the big motivator for lots
of deployments today, and it’s not too clear how your control panel
integrates with command line operations from capistrano.
Absolutely, that’s the next thing on our to-do list. We will have our
LiteSpeed Capistrano integration guide line on our Wiki soon. It should
be very easy actually.
However, LiteSpeed is engineered to be Apache interchangeable by using
Apache’s httpd.conf directly.
We have users who just replaced Apache with LiteSpeed while managing
hosting account in cPanel.
Wow. That sounds great. I’m definitely going to be checking this out
more.
Sounds to me like an ideal VPS setup - get fast RoR and still keep your
cPanel.
There should not be any problem to run LiteSpeed along side Apache.
However, LiteSpeed is engineered to be Apache interchangeable by using
Apache’s httpd.conf directly.
We have users who just replaced Apache with LiteSpeed while managing
hosting account in cPanel.
George, do you have any links to info about getting wordpress running
with litespeed? I can’t seem to post on your forums right now due to
mail server being down. I would like to move completely off of apache
which was serving one of the wordpress blogs till recently.
I’m definitely interested in trying your setup. Any estimate on
when your Capistrano integration guide will be online?
Maybe in next week.
Are there any issues running LiteSpeed along side Apache,
specifically 1.3. I would like to do the majority of my web
development in RoR - but I need to continue offering cPanel
to my customers which is only Apache1.3 compatible.
There should not be any problem to run LiteSpeed along side Apache.
However, LiteSpeed is engineered to be Apache interchangeable by using
Apache’s httpd.conf directly.
We have users who just replaced Apache with LiteSpeed while managing
hosting account in cPanel.
Due to the dramatic differences between Windows and Unix(s), porting the
whole LSWS product is a not a easy task, however, a dedicated Rails
application server is possible, if the demand is high enough.
After reading your post, it took