I don't think there's a way to do that other than using a proxy (ISAPI_REWRITE) or just a server-side redirect. I'd love to be proven wrong though.
on 2006-03-15 17:00
on 2006-03-16 02:23
You folks should take a look at the Pound reverse proxy: http://www.apsis.ch/pound/ It is designed to sit in front of a group of web servers and redirect based on cookies and paths and such. It could sit in front on IIS and several mongrel servers and then route the requests as needed. It is actually designed to work with IIS and can even handle the majority of the IIS WebDav capabilities. It can also give you SSL which is nice for things like Mongrel which donÂ¹t to SSL (yet). Zed A. Shaw http://www.zedshaw.com/
on 2006-03-16 04:40
I'd just like to chime in here by saying that Pound is ridiculously awesome. If you've got an HTTP problem that can't be solved with Pound and/or Balance, you're probably better off challenging your lead developer to a knife fight.
on 2006-03-16 04:59
You haven't seen my lead developer's knife ... It's about 39 inches long highly tempered steel. :o) Of course he doesn't design things so that you can be coded into a corner either.
on 2006-03-16 09:47
Hi Zed, any chance you could also include a light script to run mongrel for rails without requiring rubygems, I used to be able to just comment out the "require rubygems" line in the script but now it no longer works, since you've introduced the Gem Plugin. I know I could just RTFM and write a script myself, but I thought the goal of Mongrel was to keep thing simple and fast. Gael
on 2006-03-16 20:09
I did some basic speed test on my rails application. I use Centrino 1.7GHz, WinXP. For simple test I used Apache 'ab -n 100 -c 10 http://url.... ' Running Mongrel 0.3.11 I got: development env. = 4.5 req./sec production env. = 11.5 req./sec Running Webrick I got: development env. = 5.7 req./sec production env. =25.9 req./sec Does anyone know why the webrick is still faster? Mongrel runs without problem but quite slow. Cant see any advantage to webrick. David Marko PS: I run rails edge, Ruby 1.8.4
on 2006-03-17 06:30
I'll look at it. Is there a particular thing that gems is doing which makes it painful for you? Zed A. Shaw http://www.zedshaw.com/
on 2006-03-17 08:26
On 17/03/06, Zed Shaw <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > I'll look at it. Is there a particular thing that gems is doing which makes > it painful for you? Not really, but Mongrel itself doesn't really need gems, it's only the since you introduced the gem_plugin that you need it. It might be handy to have a lite version without the plugin for people who dont need plugins...hence dont need Rubygems I'm just worried that if you start requiring more and more external libraries in order to run Mongrel people would just start to think it becomes a big gas factory with tons of add-ons that people barely use, you may as well use Lighttpd + FastCGI... I like Mongrel because it is simple and just run out of the shelf without going through tons of docs to find out how to get it running and it performs well. Gael
on 2006-03-30 14:23
On 3/17/06, Zed Shaw <email@example.com> wrote: > I'll look at it. Is there a particular thing that gems is doing which makes > it painful for you? If I understand it correctly it requires Ruby 1.8.4 and Ubuntu Linux comes with 1.8.3 and it's a pain to upgrade. PS. If anyone knows a nice and easy way to get Ruby 1.8.4 running on Breezy, Ubuntu 5.10 please tell me. DS. -- Jonas Elfström
on 2006-03-30 15:00
Hijacking threads arn't you. There was a post yesterday from Jason Stewart <firstname.lastname@example.org>: >> > The problem with Breezy is that although the Ruby version is 1.8.2 the > First remove any ruby stuff you have already installed on breezy, then > source and tracked in Debian's package system. > > Regards, > Jason > ______ Jonas ElfstrÃ¶m schreef: