# Is mongrel\_cluster+pound good enough? **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [October 19, 2006, 3:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-mongrel-cluster-pound-good-enough/72866 "2006-10-19T15:12:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![patcito](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/50afbb/32.png) [@patcito](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/patcito)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 3:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-mongrel-cluster-pound-good-enough/72866/1 "2006-10-19T15:12:41Z")
hey all, I’m looking to deploy my rails app but havn’t decided yet on the setup. mongrel\_cluster+pound looks like the most simple solution but is it enough (as in will it scale 🙂 if the server gets a lot of visitors? or is (pound?)+apache2+mongrel or anything else better? thanx in advance Pat ---
**Author:** ![patcito](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/50afbb/32.png) [@patcito](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/patcito)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-mongrel-cluster-pound-good-enough/72866/2 "2006-10-19T15:30:47Z")
Hello Patrick, 2006/10/19, Patrick A. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid): > I’m looking to deploy my rails app but havn’t decided yet on the setup. > mongrel\_cluster+pound looks like the most simple solution but is it enough > (as in will it scale 🙂 if the server gets a lot of visitors? or is > (pound?)+apache2+mongrel or anything else better? It is recommended that you let a regular web server handle the static file content. Mongrel can serve the static file content, but it is supposed to make a more robust system. Personnaly, I have Apache2 + mod\_balance talking to Mongrel backends. This is rock solid and have had no problems. Of course, I don’t have huge loads on the servers. ## Bye ! François Beausoleil [http://blog.teksol.info/](http://blog.teksol.info/) [http://piston.rubyforge.org/](http://piston.rubyforge.org/) ---
**Author:** ![patcito](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/50afbb/32.png) [@patcito](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/patcito)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-mongrel-cluster-pound-good-enough/72866/3 "2006-10-19T18:25:02Z")
On 10/19/06, Francois B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > It is recommended that you let a regular web server handle the static > file content. Mongrel can serve the static file content, but it is > supposed to make a more robust system. > > Personnaly, I have Apache2 + mod\_balance talking to Mongrel backends. > This is rock solid and have had no problems. Of course, I don’t have > huge loads on the servers. do you know of a good tutorial do do a apache2+mod\_balancing+mongrel, I found some but they were pretty complex. thanx in advance Pat ---
**Author:** ![patcito](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/50afbb/32.png) [@patcito](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/patcito)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-mongrel-cluster-pound-good-enough/72866/4 "2006-10-19T20:13:23Z")
I’m currently using Litespeed ([http://www.litespeedtech.com](http://www.litespeedtech.com)) and I’m really happy with it, it is: - easy to setup - really fast - uses few resources (much less than a mongrel cluster) - and easy to update Take a look at the tutorials at [http://i.nfectio.us/articles/2006/09/04/litespeed-web-server-2-2-includes-rails-support](http://i.nfectio.us/articles/2006/09/04/litespeed-web-server-2-2-includes-rails-support), to see how good it is. But first experiment with Apache + Mongrel + Pound, it will make Litespeed even better. Kind regards, Nick ---
**Author:** ![patcito](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/50afbb/32.png) [@patcito](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/patcito)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 7:01pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-mongrel-cluster-pound-good-enough/72866/5 "2006-10-19T19:01:32Z")
> found some but they were pretty complex. > What do you need? Search the lists for configuration examples (this > list, > but more importantly the mongrel list). Other than that it’s just > installing apache2 and mongrel then configuring… -philip ---
**Author:** ![patcito](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/50afbb/32.png) [@patcito](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/patcito)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2006, 11:01pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-mongrel-cluster-pound-good-enough/72866/6 "2006-10-19T23:01:40Z")
hi there, here´s another configuration that i use for a rather large site with lots and lots of db reads but considerably less db writes (think cms and a fair amount of sweepstakes) i have litespeed as the server on one machine mysql5 on another machine a cluster of memcached machines to cache pretty much all the db reads i use cached model for the models and put them in memcached i also put the sessions into memcached this works extremely well and beat a mongrel cluster for my purposes. even though i must say that the biggest speed improvement of the whole setup was memcached and litespeed was just icing on the cake. a quick rundown of the stuff that needs to be installed: > **[memcached - a distributed memory object caching system](http://memcached.org/)** > > memcached the ruby bindings for that can be installed as a gem cached model also and of course litespeed kind regards, alexander