I have talked a customer into using Radiant for a small project, but they would like to remain with their server, who does not offer Rails. However, they offer virtual machines and have Rails apps running on those. So far so good. My question is how much RAM should I go for? They offer 128 MB and 256 MB for only a little more. Is 128 enough or should I just talk them into the 256 and save everybody some time? Thanks. Keith Bingman Tel: +49-7731-79838380 firstname.lastname@example.org http://keithbingman.com
on 2007-06-29 08:08
on 2007-06-29 08:17
128MB is probably too little, unless you're planning on getting away with a single mongrel running the site. If you include imagemagick-based image manipulation of any kind, that 128MB might be pushing it too.
on 2007-06-29 08:44
Thanks. This is exactly what I needed to know. Yes ImageMagick (or ImageScience) will be included. Are there any good resources you can point me to about setting this all up? I have lots of Radiant sites at this point, but all on shared hosting. This is a first. Keith Bingman Tel: +49-7731-79838380 email@example.com http://keithbingman.com
on 2007-06-29 09:20
My preferred way to go about it is to use mongrel behind apache and following instructions from http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/docs/apache.html But that's mainly because I feel very confortable with both mongrel and apache and I tend to be installing on fairly hefty machines. Fastcgi, a direct single instance of mongrel, mongrel clustered behind lighttpd, pound or pen are all good options depending on what you're confortable with and your performance needs. One of those options might provide you with better utilisation of the resources you're getting. There's not really that much to doing it in a linux environment - the most difficult part is figuring out which of the many different ways of configuring things you want to follow.
on 2007-06-29 09:49
Lighttpd is small, fast and easy to setup. This great guide shows you how to setup a rails stack in a VPS/dedicated server: http://brainspl.at/rails_stack.html The script described here may help too: http://bliki.rimuhosting.com/space/knowledgebase/l... /AITOR
on 2007-06-29 14:30
I also use Mongrel behind Apache, but I've heard good things about nginx too. I would say you can expect your Rails/Radiant processes to consume at least 20MB of memory, on average around 30-40, including RMagick or ImageScience. For reference, seancribbs.com is running behind Apache 2.2 on one Mongrel and there's another app on there that has two of its own. This server is also running MySQL so it gets close to the 256MB limit at times, but I've never had notice of an over-use (yet). If their needs aren't that intense, sqlite3 might be a good solution for the db. I've also had great success with Litespeed; kckcc.edu uses that, with its built-in Rails support. I'd say it consumes about as much as the Apache/Mongrel option. I second Daniel's observation about 'personal preference', too. Really it comes down to what you want to do and can put up with! Sean
on 2007-06-29 14:50
I'd go with 256MB. I wouldn't run Mongrel though, others may disagree. I use Lighttpd with static FastCGI for my sites and all our client sites we do with Radiant. Lighttpd will really reduce your virtual server overhead as compared to running Apache and by using FastCGI you reduce the complexity of the overall setup by removing the need for any kind of Proxying. Most of our clients run fine with lighttpd connecting to 3 static fastcgi processes. Lighttpd also allows you to set min and max fastcgi connections so the app can scale on demand to a certain extent based on load. But others on this list might swear by Mongrel, I wouldn't use it in a virtual server environment though, at least not at 128 or 256 memory points. Also, make sure you tweak your MySQL configuration well, InnoDB is a memory hog and MySQL will easily eat way more memory than your actual app will. -James