# Mongrel vs. fcgi **URL:** \ **Category:** Deployment\ **Created:** [March 6, 2008, 2:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mongrel-vs-fcgi/131150 "2008-03-06T14:19:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/9fc348/32.png) [@maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/maerzbow)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2008, 2:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mongrel-vs-fcgi/131150/1 "2008-03-06T14:19:54Z")
I have a virtual root server (monthly $10) running some RoR projects with mediocre traffic by using MONGREL. It ROCKS. But with every new mongrel instance I am getting closer to run out of system resources. The web is full of posts like: FCGI is dead - Mongrel is the way how to do it. But then you see a list of great WebHosting plans like this: [http://www.rubyonrailswebhost.com/](http://www.rubyonrailswebhost.com/) According to the reviews, it seems that these people know how to hist RoR But they are all using: FCGI - do you think it is a good idea to get one of these hosting plans? - does it scale - even if you are getting more traffic as expected? - are there any other downsides using a webspace hosting over a root server? what do you think? ---
**Author:** ![maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/9fc348/32.png) [@maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/maerzbow)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2008, 2:42pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mongrel-vs-fcgi/131150/2 "2008-03-06T14:42:35Z")
James On 6 Mar 2008, at 13:08, maerzbow wrote: > to do it. > But then you see a list of great WebHosting plans like this: > [http://www.rubyonrailswebhost.com/](http://www.rubyonrailswebhost.com/) > > According to the reviews, it seems that these people know how to hist > RoR > But they are all using: FCGI > Not sure that is true, it is just an option that fits inside a shared > host, and is in my experience entirely unsatisfactory even with the > longer standing rails fcgi hosts, but it does let them offer a low end > rails option, just not a good one. ---
**Author:** ![maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/9fc348/32.png) [@maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/maerzbow)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2008, 4:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mongrel-vs-fcgi/131150/3 "2008-03-06T16:10:52Z")
We started offering Ruby on Rails hosting at Planet Argon over three years ago. At the time fcgi was the best solution aside from pure-cgi. Mongrel became the better solution about a year later and we’ve not looked back. You’ll find much better documentation for mongrel nowadays and am of the opinion that if a web hosting provider is offering fcgi as the default than they’re three years behind the technology. 😉 Robby Sent from my iPhone ---
**Author:** ![maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/9fc348/32.png) [@maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/maerzbow)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 1:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mongrel-vs-fcgi/131150/4 "2008-03-09T13:23:34Z")
Hey thanks, guys! Just to sum it up: Serving RoR via FCGI works, and is a reliable solution to host RoR projects. But you can’t expect that it will perform compared to Mongrel etc. Perhaps you should take the name “Developer plan” serious and host your production environment not via FCGI. That’s what came to my mind reading the above posts. … and I am fine with that! Mercy [http://blog.odeley.com](http://blog.odeley.com) ---
**Author:** ![maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/9fc348/32.png) [@maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/maerzbow)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 2:24pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mongrel-vs-fcgi/131150/5 "2008-03-09T14:24:49Z")
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 6:22 AM, maerzbow [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Serving RoR via FCGI works, and is a reliable solution to host RoR > projects. When Rails community migrated en masse from various Ruby/FCGI solutions to Mongrel, it had nothing to do with performance, and everything with stability under real-life load (or lack thereof). Maybe something has changed in this department since… based on past performances, I would be scared to use FCGI for hosting a Ruby app. – Alexey V. CruiseControl.rb [[http://cruisecontrolrb.thoughtworks.com](http://cruisecontrolrb.thoughtworks.com)] RubyWorks [[http://rubyworks.thoughtworks.com](http://rubyworks.thoughtworks.com)] ---
**Author:** ![maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/9fc348/32.png) [@maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/maerzbow)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 3:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mongrel-vs-fcgi/131150/6 "2008-03-09T15:19:36Z")
Oh, well. If it works pretty well with a simple and cheap setup , why fix it? 😉 Off Topic: Please feel free to register your blog at [RubyCorner.com](http://RubyCorner.com) and help the community grow. – Aníbal Rojas > **[Home - Has Many Developers](https://hasmanydevelopers.com/)** > > We are the best choice for your building design and development > **[RUBYCORNER.COM](https://www.rubycorner.com/)** > > RUBYCORNER.COM - Contact us for any business inquiries [http://anibal.rojas.com](http://anibal.rojas.com) ---
**Author:** ![maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/9fc348/32.png) [@maerzbow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/maerzbow)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2008, 1:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mongrel-vs-fcgi/131150/7 "2008-03-07T13:59:40Z")
We are running a few Rails applications on [RailsPlayground.net](http://RailsPlayground.net) ([RubyCorner.com](http://RubyCorner.com) is one of them) using dynamic FastCGI, they also offer using Lighttpd with Mogrel in back of Apache to handle proxy requests. For low to moderated traffic any of this configurations, works pretty well. They call them Developer plans. We had to move one application to a VPS plan, with Nginx in the front of a couple of Mongrels not because the Lighty+Mongrel could not handle the requests, but because of the heavy traffic driven to hot linked “Link to us” banner. This heavy traffic over a small static asset went driven trough Apache to lighty and back, and caused a lot of stress on Apache. – Aníbal Rojas > **[Home - Has Many Developers](https://hasmanydevelopers.com/)** > > We are the best choice for your building design and development > **[RUBYCORNER.COM](https://www.rubycorner.com/)** > > RUBYCORNER.COM - Contact us for any business inquiries [http://anibal.rojas.com](http://anibal.rojas.com)