# Why not mod\_ruby? **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [April 27, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-not-mod-ruby/58976 "2006-04-27T15:27:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/4af34b/32.png) [@hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/hasse)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-not-mod-ruby/58976/1 "2006-04-27T15:27:29Z")
Hi! I’ve understood that the mod\_ruby apache module is not recommended for running Ruby on Rails applications. But I haven’t found any information as to why that is so. Please enlighten me. And could you point me to the (currently) prefered production environment. (That can handle both RoR and PHP sites). Thank you and best regards Hans-Eric Grönlund ---
**Author:** ![hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/4af34b/32.png) [@hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/hasse)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 3:39pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-not-mod-ruby/58976/2 "2006-04-27T15:39:05Z")
The “prefered” way is to run lighty with fast\_cgi support. I currently run Apache2 with fcgi and have no problems. Charlie B. [www.recentrambles.com](http://www.recentrambles.com) ---
**Author:** ![hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/4af34b/32.png) [@hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/hasse)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 3:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-not-mod-ruby/58976/3 "2006-04-27T15:50:12Z")
The reason mod\_ruby isn’t recommended is that it is very, very, very, very slow. Simple as that. ---
**Author:** ![hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/4af34b/32.png) [@hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/hasse)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 10:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-not-mod-ruby/58976/4 "2006-04-27T22:45:43Z")
Charlie B. wrote: > The “prefered” way is to run lighty with fast\_cgi support. I currently > run Apache2 with fcgi and have no problems. ligthy, is that lighttp? ---
**Author:** ![hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/4af34b/32.png) [@hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/hasse)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-not-mod-ruby/58976/5 "2006-04-27T17:40:00Z")
On Apr 27, 2006, at 6:27 AM, Hans-Eric Grönlund wrote: > Thank you and best regards > > Hans-Eric Grönlund > > – With mod\_ruby you can only run one rails app in one apache install. Because mod\_ruby embeds a ruby interpreter inside of the apache process. So more then one rails app and they would step on each other. But mod\_ruby is not that bad for web sites built with ruby but not rails. I have a few sites where I can use .rhtml and .rb files and they are executed by apache as ruby files. FOr sopme dead simple sites this is a nice lighweight way to go. But for rails apps mod\_ruby leaves a lot to be desired. Cheers- -Ezra ---
**Author:** ![hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/4af34b/32.png) [@hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/hasse)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 1:27am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-not-mod-ruby/58976/6 "2006-05-04T01:27:29Z")
On Apr 27, 2006, at 6:49 AM, Tom A. wrote: > > Hi! I’ve understood that the mod\_ruby apache module is not > > recommended for running Ruby on Rails applications. But I haven’t > > found any information as to why that is so. Please enlighten me. > > And could you point me to the (currently) prefered production > > environment. (That can handle both RoR and PHP sites). > > The reason mod\_ruby isn’t recommended is that it is very, very, > very, very slow. Simple as that. No, it isn’t. Maybe when Rails runs atop it, but not in general. – Eric H. - removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid - [http://blog.segment7.net](http://blog.segment7.net) This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant [http://trackmap.robotcoop.com](http://trackmap.robotcoop.com) ---
**Author:** ![hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/4af34b/32.png) [@hasse](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/hasse)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2006, 10:49pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-not-mod-ruby/58976/7 "2006-04-27T22:49:59Z")
On 4/27/06, Hans-Eric Grönlund [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Charlie B. wrote: > > > The “prefered” way is to run lighty with fast\_cgi support. I currently > > run Apache2 with fcgi and have no problems. > > ligthy, is that lighttp? Yes. It’s referred to as “Lighty” on the main site. [http://www.lighttpd.net/](http://www.lighttpd.net/)