# Memory requirements of FCGI process versus mongrel server **URL:** \ **Category:** Deployment\ **Created:** [July 3, 2007, 3:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/memory-requirements-of-fcgi-process-versus-mongrel-server/108437 "2007-07-03T15:46:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Hasham](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/2bfe46/32.png) [@Hasham](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Hasham)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2007, 3:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/memory-requirements-of-fcgi-process-versus-mongrel-server/108437/1 "2007-07-03T15:46:28Z")
I think running multiple fcgi processes require less memory and cpu resources than equal number of mongrel servers, then what is reason of mongrel being platform of choice? And is there any work in progress to make rails thread safe? ---
**Author:** ![Hasham](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/2bfe46/32.png) [@Hasham](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Hasham)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2007, 8:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/memory-requirements-of-fcgi-process-versus-mongrel-server/108437/2 "2007-07-03T20:02:05Z")
Mongrel is the platform of choice because Apache fcgi is rather buggy. I’ve had good luck with fcgi and lighttpd, but there is a lot of value in the Rails community in having a easy, standard way of deploying applications, and that standard deployment has to run well on apache. Thus, mongrel has become that standard. On 7/3/07, Hasham [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I think running multiple fcgi processes require less memory and cpu > resources than equal number of mongrel servers, then what is reason of > mongrel being platform of choice? And is there any work in progress to > make rails thread safe? > > > ## – Andrew S. \* [http://semprebon.blogspot.com/](http://semprebon.blogspot.com/)