# Large scale deployment

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/large-scale-deployment/124988>\
**Category:** Deployment\
**Created:** [January 4, 2008, 11:30am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/large-scale-deployment/124988 "2008-01-04T11:30:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damien\_Hunter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Damien\_Hunter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Damien_Hunter)\
**Post date:** [January 5, 2008, 10:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/large-scale-deployment/124988/21 "2008-01-05T22:41:10Z")

</div>

Lets start with the last thing u said. Litespeed has basically the same  
kind  
of stability of apache. Do you really need monit to monitor apache?  
Maybe if  
you’re seriously having some kind of major app that will break the  
underlying web server, then yes, but for 99% of us, no.

I think what you’re forgetting I can also set litespeed to adjust based  
on  
memory AND process limits per user.

I can set 2 min and 10 max and forget about it. Litespeed adds more if  
necessary, then based on capacity, gracefully ramps down if I dont need  
them, thus leaving the system for other things. A great example is if  
I’m  
running CRON’s in the middle of the night, this is when my traffic is  
low.  
Why would I want 10 instances running? I can use the resources used from  
not  
having 8 useless instances running doing nothing.

My point in all of this is not to knock the great open source software  
out  
there which I have used and will continue to do so, but just to point  
out  
that Litespeed is an extremely credible contender for Rails. It really  
makes  
it super simple to get going with top-notch performance as a great side  
bonus. For guys like me who want to spend time coding and dealing with  
the  
strategic issues on my site (our core competence), Litespeed is a  
godsend.

- Ericson S.  
CTO  
[http://www.funadvice.com](http://www.funadvice.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damien\_Hunter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Damien\_Hunter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Damien_Hunter)\
**Post date:** [January 6, 2008, 4:53am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/large-scale-deployment/124988/22 "2008-01-06T04:53:32Z")

</div>

> > The point is if I know that my theorerical maximums are 10 mongrels  
> > (lsapi clients). Then once I set that, I no longer have to worry about it.
> 
> But why wouldn’t you want all 10 running if 10 is the maximum?

Not as useful for consistently large traffice sites, but to take it  
another direction, I love litespeed for the fact that I can run several  
Rails sites on my little 1gb box that also does postfix/postgresql/mysql  
and all sorts of other things and not have to have 6-7 mongrel processes  
running constantly. The sites are so small that most of the time there  
aren’t any lsapi processes running.

True, this isn’t large scale, but it’s a nice feature 🙂

I also suspect that we all may have different ideas of large scale 🙂

> > And the gravy on the steak? You don’t need monit for all of that.
> 
> But you do need monit to monitor lightspeed itself, so you’ve gained  
> nothing. 🙂

What monitors monit? 🙂

[Previous page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/large-scale-deployment/124988.md?page=1)