# Passenger vs Mongrel **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [March 25, 2009, 10:24am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/passenger-vs-mongrel/163830 "2009-03-25T10:24:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/arghx1)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 10:24am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/passenger-vs-mongrel/163830/1 "2009-03-25T10:24:57Z")
I have a simple question guys! Is passenger for deploying RoR apps vs mongrel, which one is better? I saw how easy it’s to deploy passenger, but I wonder is it still relevant to current rails (2.3.2) and ruby 1.8.7 or 1.9? I’m very new to RoR environment. I’m more familiar with how to setup LAMP (Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP). Thanks… ---
**Author:** ![arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/arghx1)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 10:27am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/passenger-vs-mongrel/163830/2 "2009-03-25T10:27:18Z")
Power O. wrote: > I have a simple question guys! Is passenger for deploying RoR apps vs > mongrel, which one is better? I saw how easy it’s to deploy passenger, > but I wonder is it still relevant to current rails (2.3.2) and ruby > 1.8.7 or 1.9? > > I’m very new to RoR environment. I’m more familiar with how to setup > LAMP (Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP). Thanks… Both work well. If you must have apache for whatever reason, then passenger is the easiest way to go. If you don’t want to hear about apache use mongrel+nginx. Anyway, even with passenger, setting up Nginx in front of it for serving static content is a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/arghx1)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 10:35am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/passenger-vs-mongrel/163830/3 "2009-03-25T10:35:56Z")
On 25 Mar 2009, at 10:27, Fernando P. wrote: > Both work well. If you must have apache for whatever reason, then > passenger is the easiest way to go. If you don’t want to hear about > apache use mongrel+nginx. > > Anyway, even with passenger, setting up Nginx in front of it for > serving > static content is a good idea. Even with mongrel, setting up Nginx… is probably what you mean. With passenger, there is no need, Apache will serve the static files directly. And yes, unless you have a very limited amount of RAM on your VPS, go for Apache+Passenger. We switched over from Apache+load balancer +Mongrel and it’s a major improvement both in ease of use and performance. Best regards Peter De Berdt ---
**Author:** ![arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/arghx1)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 12:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/passenger-vs-mongrel/163830/4 "2009-03-25T12:06:01Z")
> Even with mongrel, setting up Nginx… is probably what you mean. With > passenger, there is no need, Apache will serve the static files > directly. Nope, even with Passenger installing Nginx in front of it is a good thing to do. Nginx can handle static files much better than Apache. That’s what I have discovered in my own benchmarks: lower memory consumption, and higher req/s specially when concurrency starts increasing or when the cpu starts choking under the load. ---
**Author:** ![arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/arghx1)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/passenger-vs-mongrel/163830/5 "2009-03-25T17:18:58Z")
Power O., The answer is ‘it depends’, if you are familiar with Apache, already have it running and feel comfortable managing it Passenger is a really good option, also it should do a great job if you are planning to have a bunch of small apps. If you are low on resources and need nothing but run a rails app mongrel or thing should do the job for you, usually with a small, fast, efficient web server in the front end as Nginx. I would recommend posting it to the Rails Deployment Group: [http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-deployment/about](http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-deployment/about) Best regards, * * * Aníbal Rojas @anibalrojas > **[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://en.anibal.rojas.com.ve](http://en.anibal.rojas.com.ve) On Mar 26, 4:24 am, Power O. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) ---
**Author:** ![arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/arghx1)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/passenger-vs-mongrel/163830/6 "2009-03-26T03:45:09Z")
Thanks for the suggestion. Last night I got passenger gem installed, and then I point apache’s document root to my-app/public/, but for some reason, passenger couldn’t find the app. Oh, it find the public/'s static index page OK, but when I entered direct url such as my-app/display, the server displayed some sort of page not found. I know for sure my route is OK, because if I test it with mongrel by doing /script/server, and visit localhost:3000, it would work. To be clear I got Apache running fine, because PHP’s Drupal is running when I visit [something.example.com/drupal](http://something.example.com/drupal). (I changed /etc/hosts/ to have [example.com](http://example.com) works as localhost). I know my apache’s virtual hosts configuration got it right because I did that for PHP’s Drupal. With that said, I have to go and read more about passenger and its tutorial, plus how RoR/Ruby server gets deployed. Aníbal Rojas wrote: > Power O., > > The answer is ‘it depends’, if you are familiar with Apache, > already have it running and feel comfortable managing it Passenger is > a really good option, also it should do a great job if you are > planning to have a bunch of small apps. If you are low on resources > and need nothing but run a rails app mongrel or thing should do the > job for you, usually with a small, fast, efficient web server in the > front end as Nginx. > > I would recommend posting it to the Rails Deployment Group: > > [http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-deployment/about](http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-deployment/about) > > Best regards, > > * * * > > An�bal Rojas @anibalrojas > [http://hasmanydevelopers.com](http://hasmanydevelopers.com) > [http://rubycorner.com](http://rubycorner.com) > [http://en.anibal.rojas.com.ve](http://en.anibal.rojas.com.ve) > > On Mar 26, 4:24 am, Power O. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) ---
**Author:** ![arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/aca169/32.png) [@arghx1](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/arghx1)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/passenger-vs-mongrel/163830/7 "2009-03-25T16:22:02Z")
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Power O. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I have a simple question guys! Is passenger for deploying RoR apps vs > mongrel, which one is better? I saw how easy it’s to deploy passenger, > but I wonder is it still relevant to current rails (2.3.2) and ruby > 1.8.7 or 1.9? > > I’m very new to RoR environment. I’m more familiar with how to setup > LAMP (Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP). Thanks… You mean to say you don’t use SQLite as you default development database? and you develop on Linux? 🙂 Ruby 1.9 is fairly new, I’d go with 1.8.7 for a while still. Rails 2.3.2 is also new but appears to be is running ok for me, just started using it a couple days ago however. – Greg D. [http://destiney.com/](http://destiney.com/)