Forum: Ruby on Rails Why not mod_ruby?

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.
F87d69ea4378aed00a07e2b9041848c6?d=identicon&s=25 Hans-eric Grönlund (hasse)
on 2006-04-27 15:27
Hi!

I've understood that the mod_ruby apache module is not recommended for
running Ruby on Rails applications. But I haven't found any information
as to why that is so. Please enlighten me. And could you point me to the
(currently) prefered production environment. (That can handle both RoR
and PHP sites).

Thank you and best regards

Hans-Eric Grönlund
89d967359903c639d31e4cad4569f537?d=identicon&s=25 Charlie Bowman (Guest)
on 2006-04-27 15:39
(Received via mailing list)
The "prefered" way is to run lighty with fast_cgi support.  I currently
run Apache2 with fcgi and have no problems.

Charlie Bowman
www.recentrambles.com
E1c74637dbb1b765861978e4c4f6388e?d=identicon&s=25 Tom Armitage (Guest)
on 2006-04-27 15:50
(Received via mailing list)
The reason mod_ruby isn't recommended is that it is very, very, very,
very
slow. Simple as that.
6076c22b65b36f5d75c30bdcfb2fda85?d=identicon&s=25 Ezra Zygmuntowicz (Guest)
on 2006-04-27 17:40
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 27, 2006, at 6:27 AM, Hans-Eric Grönlund wrote:

> Thank you and best regards
>
> Hans-Eric Grönlund
>
> --


With mod_ruby you can only run one rails app in one apache install.
Because mod_ruby embeds a ruby interpreter inside of the apache
process. So more then one rails app and they would step on each
other. But mod_ruby is not that bad for web sites built with ruby but
not rails. I have a few sites where I can use .rhtml and .rb files
and they are executed by apache as ruby files. FOr sopme dead simple
sites this is a nice lighweight way to go. But for rails apps
mod_ruby leaves a lot to be desired.

Cheers-
-Ezra
F87d69ea4378aed00a07e2b9041848c6?d=identicon&s=25 Hans-eric Grönlund (hasse)
on 2006-04-27 22:45
Charlie Bowman wrote:
> The "prefered" way is to run lighty with fast_cgi support.  I currently
> run Apache2 with fcgi and have no problems.

ligthy, is that lighttp?
119af50160cabfe1fb6f2f05f5018c64?d=identicon&s=25 James Ludlow (Guest)
on 2006-04-27 22:49
(Received via mailing list)
On 4/27/06, Hans-Eric Grönlund <info@hegsoft.com> wrote:
> Charlie Bowman wrote:
> > The "prefered" way is to run lighty with fast_cgi support.  I currently
> > run Apache2 with fcgi and have no problems.
>
> ligthy, is that lighttp?

Yes.  It's referred to as "Lighty" on the main site.
http://www.lighttpd.net/
58479f76374a3ba3c69b9804163f39f4?d=identicon&s=25 Eric Hodel (Guest)
on 2006-05-04 01:27
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 27, 2006, at 6:49 AM, Tom Armitage wrote:

>> Hi! I've understood that the mod_ruby apache module is not
>> recommended for running Ruby on Rails applications. But I haven't
>> found any information as to why that is so. Please enlighten me.
>> And could you point me to the (currently) prefered production
>> environment. (That can handle both RoR and PHP sites).
>
> The reason mod_ruby isn't recommended is that it is very, very,
> very, very slow. Simple as that.

No, it isn't.  Maybe when Rails runs atop it, but not in general.

--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.