Forum: Ruby on Rails RE: Mongrel Web Server 0.3.11 -- Edge Rails and Win32Complia

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
60e38de043848f82392062088f191213?d=identicon&s=25 Hogan, Brian P. (Guest)
on 2006-03-15 17:00
(Received via mailing list)
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.
8c43ed7f065406bf171c0f3eb32cf615?d=identicon&s=25 Zed Shaw (Guest)
on 2006-03-16 02:23
(Received via mailing list)
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 don¹t to SSL (yet).

Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/
25e11a00a89683f7e01e425a1a6e305c?d=identicon&s=25 Wilson Bilkovich (Guest)
on 2006-03-16 04:40
(Received via mailing list)
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.
Be09addcbb47f2a684fa5c48bac94149?d=identicon&s=25 David Johnson (Guest)
on 2006-03-16 04:59
(Received via mailing list)
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.
D810e7436feb302a3e4e6b11895a7f65?d=identicon&s=25 Gael Pourriel (Guest)
on 2006-03-16 09:47
(Received via mailing list)
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
A5b8b720efd929c118a4bdf00d2cbfed?d=identicon&s=25 David Marko (Guest)
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
8c43ed7f065406bf171c0f3eb32cf615?d=identicon&s=25 Zed Shaw (Guest)
on 2006-03-17 06:30
(Received via mailing list)
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/
D810e7436feb302a3e4e6b11895a7f65?d=identicon&s=25 Gael Pourriel (Guest)
on 2006-03-17 08:26
(Received via mailing list)
On 17/03/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> 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
9e36aeb20f1b4a763043d3ce4942b454?d=identicon&s=25 Jonas Elfström (Guest)
on 2006-03-30 14:23
(Received via mailing list)
On 3/17/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.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
22ff4abebc9bfd299524bb14449d95dc?d=identicon&s=25 Erik van Oosten (Guest)
on 2006-03-30 15:00
(Received via mailing list)
Hijacking threads arn't you.

There was a post yesterday from Jason Stewart <jstewart@rtl.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 Elfström schreef:
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.