# Which kind of deployment has the best performance **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [May 22, 2006, 7:19am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/which-kind-of-deployment-has-the-best-performance/61233 "2006-05-22T07:19:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/d6d6ee/32.png) [@charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/charlie)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 7:19am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/which-kind-of-deployment-has-the-best-performance/61233/1 "2006-05-22T07:19:33Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/d6d6ee/32.png) [@charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/charlie)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 10:29am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/which-kind-of-deployment-has-the-best-performance/61233/2 "2006-05-22T10:29:43Z")
> 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](http://www.mdaines.com) ---
**Author:** ![charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/d6d6ee/32.png) [@charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/charlie)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 10:39am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/which-kind-of-deployment-has-the-best-performance/61233/3 "2006-05-22T10:39:05Z")
> 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-](http://weblog.textdrive.com/article/219/what-about-apache-to-) mongrel-for-rails-applications – Michael D. [http://www.mdaines.com](http://www.mdaines.com) ---
**Author:** ![charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/d6d6ee/32.png) [@charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/charlie)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/which-kind-of-deployment-has-the-best-performance/61233/4 "2006-05-22T17:03:05Z")
Out of interest, which platfom you intend to run all this? ---
**Author:** ![charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/d6d6ee/32.png) [@charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/charlie)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/which-kind-of-deployment-has-the-best-performance/61233/5 "2006-05-22T16:56:29Z")
On 5/21/06, charlie [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto: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 ---
**Author:** ![charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/d6d6ee/32.png) [@charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/charlie)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 5:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/which-kind-of-deployment-has-the-best-performance/61233/6 "2006-05-22T17:31:27Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/d6d6ee/32.png) [@charlie](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/charlie)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 8:15pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/which-kind-of-deployment-has-the-best-performance/61233/7 "2006-05-22T20:15:43Z")
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.