Forum: Ruby on Rails which kind of deployment has the best performance

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.
2e5a77bf26f7cab677f33537c8495fbf?d=identicon&s=25 charlie (Guest)
on 2006-05-22 07:19
In the following deployment of web app on ONE pc-based server,running
linux,which can support the most amount of concurrent users as well as
the shortest latency?
1 apache+mongrel
2 apache+mongrel_cluster
3 lighthttpd+mongrel
4 lighthttpd+mongrel_cluster
5 lighthttpd+fastcgi

Thanks
charlie
90842970ceaf7ed19136ce7b6f8e1455?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Daines (Guest)
on 2006-05-22 10:29
(Received via mailing list)
> In the following deployment of web app on ONE pc-based server,running
> linux,which can support the most amount of concurrent users as well as
> the shortest latency?

Perhaps this will be a useless thing for me to say in response, but
why not test each configuration yourself and post your results? I
haven't personally seen such a comparison (though it's likely one
exists) and it'd probably be useful for others.


-- Michael Daines
    http://www.mdaines.com
90842970ceaf7ed19136ce7b6f8e1455?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Daines (Guest)
on 2006-05-22 10:39
(Received via mailing list)
> 1 apache+mongrel
> 2 apache+mongrel_cluster
> 3 lighthttpd+mongrel
> 4 lighthttpd+mongrel_cluster
> 5 lighthttpd+fastcgi

Maybe not exactly that, but the TextDrive weblog has at least one
post that might be helpful:

   http://weblog.textdrive.com/article/219/what-about...
mongrel-for-rails-applications


-- Michael Daines
    http://www.mdaines.com
1727ebc9e802815ae2441122b9de28ac?d=identicon&s=25 Austin Godber (Guest)
on 2006-05-22 16:56
(Received via mailing list)
On 5/21/06, charlie <blogyingfeng@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the following deployment of web app on ONE pc-based server,running
> linux,which can support the most amount of concurrent users as well as
> the shortest latency?
> 1 apache+mongrel
> 2 apache+mongrel_cluster
> 3 lighthttpd+mongrel
> 4 lighthttpd+mongrel_cluster
> 5 lighthttpd+fastcgi

Well, mongrel and mogrel_cluster are not mutually exclusive.  If you
are using mongrel, you will most definitely want to use
mongrel_cluster (really all it does it allow you to work with multiple
instances of mongrel easily.  So it is just a wrapper that simplifies
use of mongrel in a production situation).

I personally have no clue which is faster.  But the ease of setup and
use of mongrel with mongrel_cluster is a tremendous advantage ...
added with the ease of configuring lighty I would be tempted to go
that route.  But as lighty has suffered some stagnation recently it
would concern me in the long term.  People on the mongrel mailing list
have recently mentioned apache 2.2 and mod_proxy so I need to try that
route next.

Austin
D810e7436feb302a3e4e6b11895a7f65?d=identicon&s=25 Gael Pourriel (Guest)
on 2006-05-22 17:03
(Received via mailing list)
Out of interest, which platfom you intend to run all this?
30269682335f1fb247d71969fa715b5e?d=identicon&s=25 Roberto Saccon (rsaccon)
on 2006-05-22 17:31
(Received via mailing list)
I have tried all this configurations, but did not do any perfomance
mesurements yet. The most easy to setup up (on debian sarge) with a real
webserver at  front for caching, compressing and virtual hosting was
apache+mongrel_cluster.
6ef8cb7cd7cd58077f0b57e4fa49a969?d=identicon&s=25 Brian Hogan (Guest)
on 2006-05-22 20:15
(Received via mailing list)
I have typically gotten the fastest with lighttpd + fastcgi... but
only *slightly* higher than other configs. Since mongrel + anything is
much easier to configure and manage, I just use that on *nix.

But you *need* to do your own tests.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.