Forum: Ruby on Rails Stable Production Environment on Unix/Linux

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.
2ba0ca567353a0b1c28cfc0b5b341ef2?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Kastner (Guest)
on 2006-03-30 08:59
(Received via mailing list)
Hello,

I wonder what would be the most stable production runtime environment
for a
rails application on Unix/Linux. I am not very fond of FastCGI indeed,
since
it's not seen any further developement lately.

What are your experiences e.g. with the mongrel server? Has anybody used
it for
production?

What are the alternatives?

May be some fine lad could just point me to web site dealing with real
live
production examples.

Greetings

Michael Kastner
5d15c6821f3c3054c04b85471824ba7c?d=identicon&s=25 Mikkel Bruun (Guest)
on 2006-03-30 09:02
(Received via mailing list)
lighttpd and fcgi will probably give you the best performance at the
moment.

Some people are proxying mongrel behind lighty, butI have not tried this
in production

On Thursday, March 30, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Michael Kastner wrote:
>production?
>_______________________________________________
>Rails mailing list
>Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
>http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails


Mikkel Bruun

www.strongside.dk    - Football Portal(DK)
nflfeed.helenius.org - Football News(DK)
ting.minline.dk      - Buy Old Stuff!(DK)
429500a5a54600958c9c7ac032a37f66?d=identicon&s=25 Joe (Guest)
on 2006-03-30 09:42
Michael Kastner wrote:
>
> What are your experiences e.g. with the mongrel server? Has anybody used
> it for
> production?

I'm now using the latest version of Mongrel (0.3.12) in production, and
so far -  after about two days - it's holding up fine; just as well as
scgi, but it performs better. Previous versions of Mongrel didn't work
for me in production, but with the latest I haven't experienced any of
the prior problems.

I also have a site using fastcgi, but it's slower, especially when it
hasn't been accessed for a while.

Joe
2ba0ca567353a0b1c28cfc0b5b341ef2?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Kastner (Guest)
on 2006-03-30 10:30
(Received via mailing list)
You dont't happen to use apache by any chance?
2ba0ca567353a0b1c28cfc0b5b341ef2?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Kastner (Guest)
on 2006-03-30 10:30
(Received via mailing list)
Well, I am stuck with apache for the time being :-(
429500a5a54600958c9c7ac032a37f66?d=identicon&s=25 Joe (Guest)
on 2006-03-30 10:39
Yeah, I use Apache on another server. As with Lighty, it can also easily
proxy requests to Mongrel (which I haven't gotten around to doing on
that server - it currently uses scgi). I don't know how proxy load
balancing - like can be done with Lighty - would be done, but it must be
possible.

Joe
3838e8177bbd683c71006b20e4d38dac?d=identicon&s=25 Will Green (Guest)
on 2006-05-02 22:28
Joe wrote:
> I don't know how proxy load
> balancing - like can be done with Lighty - would be done, but it must be
> possible.

Apache 2.2 has mod_proxy_balancer.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy_balancer.html

"This module requires the service of mod_proxy. It provides load
balancing support for HTTP, FTP and AJP13 protocols".
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.