Rails 3 backends

Are there any decent backends for rails 3? passenger is disqualified
because of it’s unfriendly install. I have a software distribution
system. I don’t compile software on production machines.
mongrel2 is disqualified because it won’t compile on *BSD, since
it insists on having sys/sendfile.h

Thanks.

Ken

I use the words you taught me. If they don’t mean anything any more,
teach me others. Or let me be silent.
Samuel Beckett (Clov, Endgame)

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Kenneth D. [email protected] wrote:

Are there any decent backends for rails 3? passenger is disqualified
because of it’s unfriendly install. I have a software distribution
system. I don’t compile software on production machines.
mongrel2 is disqualified because it won’t compile on *BSD, since
it insists on having sys/sendfile.h

Thanks.

Ken

I’ve used nginx and lighttpd without any issues, no idea if there are
pre-compiled ports for BSD however.

I found the passenger install to be quite friendly. The
owner/maintainer goes above and beyond to assist with issues.


Greg D.
destiney.com | gregdonald.com

On Friday 10 September 2010, Kenneth D. wrote:

Are there any decent backends for rails 3?

Yes: passenger and mongrel are very decent backends.

passenger is
disqualified because of it’s unfriendly install. I have a software
distribution system. I don’t compile software on production
machines.
mongrel2 is disqualified because it won’t compile on *BSD, since
it insists on having sys/sendfile.h

At least on Debian Linux there are binary packages for passenger
(libapache2-mod-passenger) as well as mongrel. Apparently you are on a
*BSD-based system. In case you haven’t looked already, make sure there
are no binary packages readily available for your systems. Consider
building the necessary packages yourself and integrate them with your
distribution system.

From your question I assume that you don’t yet have much experience with
deploying rails applications. If this is the case, I’d recommend using
passenger in favor of mongrel and the more esoteric options. It is
easier to get support and it is easier in production as there aren’t as
many (different) processes you need to monitor. – If I misinterpreted
your question, well, go ahead and use your experience.

Michael


Michael S.
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/

Quoth Michael S. ([email protected]):

it insists on having sys/sendfile.h
passenger in favor of mongrel and the more esoteric options. It is
easier to get support and it is easier in production as there aren’t as
many (different) processes you need to monitor. – If I misinterpreted
your question, well, go ahead and use your experience.

Alas, after finally getting passenger built and disted to a test
machine, the process spawner segfaults in libpthread. As for mongrel2,
it won’t compile on FreeBSD. My production system is currently running
apache/mongrel happily enough, but I was hoping to use ruby 1.9.2
when I switch to rails 3, and mongrel version 1 doesn’t play well
with ruby19.

Ken

I use the words you taught me. If they don’t mean anything any more,
teach me others. Or let me be silent.
Samuel Beckett (Clov, Endgame)

On 11 Sep 2010, at 15:26, Kenneth D. wrote:

mongrel2 is disqualified because it won’t compile on *BSD, since
From your question I assume that you don’t yet have much experience with
deploying rails applications. If this is the case, I’d recommend using
passenger in favor of mongrel and the more esoteric options. It is
easier to get support and it is easier in production as there aren’t as
many (different) processes you need to monitor. – If I misinterpreted
your question, well, go ahead and use your experience.

Alas, after finally getting passenger built and disted to a test
machine, the process spawner segfaults in libpthread.

I know there’s some issue with Passenger and OpenBSD’s pthreads, but
it’s supposed to work on FreeBSD, according to their docs, so I think
the Passenger devs would appreciate a bug report[1] about that.

Out of interest, were you using the FreeBSD rubygem-passenger port
(which seems to be actively maintained[2]), or hand-rolling something?

As for mongrel2,
it won’t compile on FreeBSD. My production system is currently running
apache/mongrel happily enough, but I was hoping to use ruby 1.9.2
when I switch to rails 3, and mongrel version 1 doesn’t play well
with ruby19.

Unicorn[3] has been getting some attention lately (i.e. Twitter and
GitHub are using it). It’s 1.9-compatible, and I remember seeing some
FreeBSD-specific options in its config, so it could be worth a look.

Chris

[1] http://code.google.com/p/phusion-passenger/issues/list
[2] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/www/rubygem-passenger/
[3] http://unicorn.bogomips.org/

On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Kenneth D. wrote:

Are there any decent backends for rails 3? passenger is disqualified
because of it’s unfriendly install. I have a software distribution
system. I don’t compile software on production machines.
mongrel2 is disqualified because it won’t compile on *BSD, since
it insists on having sys/sendfile.h

Thanks.

Ken

I have apache with passenger, nginx with passenger, and mongrel running
on FreeBSD 7.3 and MACOSX 10.6.4. I didn’t have any compile problems
with any of them that I recall. I am in the process of phasing out the
mongrels I am running in favor of nginx with passenger. The maintainer
for passenger has been very helpful when I had a problem.

The apache and passenger combination was a very easy install. Nginx
with
passenger was a little more involved but once again not very difficult.
You need to be careful to copy all the files in the gem to your
production
machine, including the support programs which are built when compiling
passenger for a particular web server.

Kim

Quoth Chris M. ([email protected]):

distribution system. I don’t compile software on production

I know there’s some issue with Passenger and OpenBSD’s pthreads, but it’s supposed to work on FreeBSD, according to their docs, so I think the Passenger devs would appreciate a bug report[1] about that.

This was on a NetBSD 5 virtual running under Xen.

Out of interest, were you using the FreeBSD rubygem-passenger port (which seems to be actively maintained[2]), or hand-rolling something?

Downloaded as source, compiled under NetBSD 5, disted to test machine.

As for mongrel2,
it won’t compile on FreeBSD. My production system is currently running
apache/mongrel happily enough, but I was hoping to use ruby 1.9.2
when I switch to rails 3, and mongrel version 1 doesn’t play well
with ruby19.

Unicorn[3] has been getting some attention lately (i.e. Twitter and GitHub are using it). It’s 1.9-compatible, and I remember seeing some FreeBSD-specific options in its config, so it could be worth a look.

Ah! I hadn’t heard of that one. I’ll investigate on Monday. Thanks
much!

Ken

I use the words you taught me. If they don’t mean anything any more,
teach me others. Or let me be silent.
Samuel Beckett (Clov, Endgame)

On 12 sep, 00:06, Kenneth D. [email protected] wrote:

As for mongrel2,
it won’t compile on FreeBSD. My production system is currently running
apache/mongrel happily enough, but I was hoping to use ruby 1.9.2
when I switch to rails 3, and mongrel version 1 doesn’t play well
with ruby19.

Unicorn[3] has been getting some attention lately (i.e. Twitter and GitHub are using it). It’s 1.9-compatible, and I remember seeing some FreeBSD-specific options in its config, so it could be worth a look.

Ah! I hadn’t heard of that one. I’ll investigate on Monday. Thanks
much!

Happy Unicorn + nginx customer here. Rock solid. Have been using the
combination for about half a year now and hasn’t skipped a beat.

mongrel2 is only a few months old; there’s no way I’d consider letting
it within 5 miles of a production server.

Cheers,
Wincent

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs