Which kind of deployment has the best performance


#1

In the following deployment of web app on ONE pc-based server,running
linux,which can support the most amount of concurrent users as well as
the shortest latency?
1 apache+mongrel
2 apache+mongrel_cluster
3 lighthttpd+mongrel
4 lighthttpd+mongrel_cluster
5 lighthttpd+fastcgi

Thanks
charlie


#2

In the following deployment of web app on ONE pc-based server,running
linux,which can support the most amount of concurrent users as well as
the shortest latency?

Perhaps this will be a useless thing for me to say in response, but
why not test each configuration yourself and post your results? I
haven’t personally seen such a comparison (though it’s likely one
exists) and it’d probably be useful for others.

– Michael D.
http://www.mdaines.com


#3

1 apache+mongrel
2 apache+mongrel_cluster
3 lighthttpd+mongrel
4 lighthttpd+mongrel_cluster
5 lighthttpd+fastcgi

Maybe not exactly that, but the TextDrive weblog has at least one
post that might be helpful:

http://weblog.textdrive.com/article/219/what-about-apache-to-
mongrel-for-rails-applications

– Michael D.
http://www.mdaines.com


#4

Out of interest, which platfom you intend to run all this?


#5

On 5/21/06, charlie removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

In the following deployment of web app on ONE pc-based server,running
linux,which can support the most amount of concurrent users as well as
the shortest latency?
1 apache+mongrel
2 apache+mongrel_cluster
3 lighthttpd+mongrel
4 lighthttpd+mongrel_cluster
5 lighthttpd+fastcgi

Well, mongrel and mogrel_cluster are not mutually exclusive. If you
are using mongrel, you will most definitely want to use
mongrel_cluster (really all it does it allow you to work with multiple
instances of mongrel easily. So it is just a wrapper that simplifies
use of mongrel in a production situation).

I personally have no clue which is faster. But the ease of setup and
use of mongrel with mongrel_cluster is a tremendous advantage …
added with the ease of configuring lighty I would be tempted to go
that route. But as lighty has suffered some stagnation recently it
would concern me in the long term. People on the mongrel mailing list
have recently mentioned apache 2.2 and mod_proxy so I need to try that
route next.

Austin


#6

I have tried all this configurations, but did not do any perfomance
mesurements yet. The most easy to setup up (on debian sarge) with a real
webserver at front for caching, compressing and virtual hosting was
apache+mongrel_cluster.


#7

I have typically gotten the fastest with lighttpd + fastcgi… but
only slightly higher than other configs. Since mongrel + anything is
much easier to configure and manage, I just use that on *nix.

But you need to do your own tests.