Hi Everyone, I was setting up Lighty+Fcgi on our server for last *couple* ( read zillion ) of hours. I had posted my problems in my previous email. But all in vain.. So, for time being, I switched to Mongrel. And the performance seemed quite good. This is the first time ever I'm using mongrel ( Awesome stuff ZedShaw..Thanks! ). I'm wondering if there are many people around who're using Mongrel in production environment. What are the benefits compared to Lighttpd ? Any performance/scaling issues ? Any catch ? Sole reason behind this email is simplicity offered by mongrel. Not easy to accept that something so easy to setup can work so fantastically ! Thanks, Pratik -- http://www.freeonrails.com - Free as in beer !
on 2006-04-16 01:03
on 2006-04-16 01:31
I've been using Mongrel to run the website for my upcoming Workshop For Good (http://www.workshopforgood.org) - (plug, plug). It has run GREAT. While you can use it "raw" - by itself - I think most people put it behind lighttpd. You can then let light do the things it does well (caching, serving html, load balancing) and let mongrel do what it does well (run Ruby code). I think you should be able to scale very well by doing the "same old things" of having a few running interpreters first, spread db and rails code to separate boxes second, then go to clustered boxes for rails & db third. I believe there was talk last week that the clustering support is "next on the to-do list" for improvement. Zed has received some funding to allow him to work on Mongrel with intensity, so look for rapid progress. The mongrel userbase is pretty small and friendly, not to mention Zed himself who is the latter, though I know not about the former. Join the mailing list and post questions, results, etc. -Jeff
on 2006-04-16 03:33
I use Mongrel in production and ever since 0.3.12 or something (the latest) it has held up great. I also use it proxied behind Lighty. And I also don't know if Zed is a big or small guy. Joe
on 2006-04-16 05:17
On Apr 15, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Joe wrote: > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails I'm using mongrel proxied behind lighty for windows production. Have an app that has to run on windows because it uses Watir to drive aome websites with IE. But its working great so far. 10 mongrels behind a lighttpd proxy. Mongrel is almost as fast as fcgi and much easier to set up. The only thing thats a bit of a pain to do is have lighty serve the static content and mongrel only serve the dynamic stuff. Cheers- -Ezra
on 2006-04-16 05:44
How much of a pain ? As described in Zed's docu ? Or did you find something which provides less pain ? Because I am planning right now to put a debian lighty in front of mongrel ... I'm using mongrel proxied behind lighty for windows production. Have
on 2006-04-16 06:27
On 4/16/06, Ezra Zygmuntowicz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Mongrel is almost as fast as fcgi and much easier to set up. The > only thing thats a bit of a pain to do is have lighty serve the > static content and mongrel only serve the dynamic stuff. > Indeed. Anyone win out in this arena? I even got all static stuff served in independent lighty server(static.host.com), but I failed to setup lighty to send 304(Not modified). Only 200 responses. What a crazy waste! I really look forward to see the documentation how to cooperate lighty proxy with backend mongrel servers.
on 2006-04-16 10:31
> I really look forward to see the documentation how to cooperate lighty proxy > with backend mongrel servers. There are some instructions here: http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/docs/lighttpd.html Plus, you get bonus docs on configuring a LUA CML powermagnet in lighttpd for flexible handling of static content requests.
on 2006-04-17 19:09
Thanks for your input guys. I have one more question. Right now, I am using Apache 2.0.x to proxy request to Lighttpd . Is it advisable to add one more level of proxy to setup Mongrel behind Lighty ? Or should I just get rid of Apache and use Light -> Mongrel combo ? How much affect does proxying has on performance ? Thanks & Regards, Pratik
on 2006-04-18 20:31
Patrik, I've actually found quite a few bugs in lighttpd's mod_proxy code. You could try using just lighttpd for the raw speed, but if backends go down it seems to not compensate properly and will give a 500 error instead of try the next backend in the list. I recommend you try one of the following configurations as alternatives: * litespeed is used by techno-weenie.com http://weblog.techno-weenie.net/ * pound in front of N mongrels (gives you SSL too). http://www.apsis.ch/pound/ * apache or lighttpd in front of a gang of mongrels served by balance. http://www.inlab.de/balance.html * just pure balance and a bunch of mongrel servers behind it. I'm using the last configuration without any problems so far. Balance is able to listen on one port and load balance the TCP traffic to as many mongrel instances as you like. It's really easy to setup but I'm pretty sure it don't work that well on windows (I could be wrong). The idea is then you can just point apache or lighttpd at one port and let balance do the proper management. Also lets you add more mongrels with a quick restart of balance. Balance doesn't give you SSL though so the next option is to use Pound. Pound is a little on the slow side since it uses native threads but it's easy to setup and works well. The litespeed setup is pretty interesting and I'll be checking it out very soon. Rick swears by it so I'm sure it's good. Zed