mongrel vs. fcgi
maerzbow
with mediocre traffic by using MONGREL.
It ROCKS.
But with every new mongrel instance I am getting closer to run out of
system resources.
The web is full of posts like: FCGI is dead - Mongrel is the way how
to do it.
But then you see a list of great WebHosting plans like this:
http://www.rubyonrailswebhost.com/
According to the reviews, it seems that these people know how to hist
RoR
But they are all using: FCGI
- do you think it is a good idea to get one of these hosting plans?
- does it scale - even if you are getting more traffic as expected?
- are there any other downsides using a webspace hosting over a root
server?
what do you think?
James McCarthy
James
On 6 Mar 2008, at 13:08, maerzbow wrote:
>
> I have a virtual root server (monthly $10) running some RoR projects
> with mediocre traffic by using MONGREL.
> It ROCKS.
>
> But with every new mongrel instance I am getting closer to run out of
> system resources.
>
>
> The web is full of posts like: FCGI is dead - Mongrel is the way how
> to do it.
> But then you see a list of great WebHosting plans like this:
> http://www.rubyonrailswebhost.com/
>
>
> According to the reviews, it seems that these people know how to hist
> RoR
> But they are all using: FCGI
Not sure that is true, it is just an option that fits inside a shared
host, and is in my experience entirely unsatisfactory even with the
longer standing rails fcgi hosts, but it does let them offer a low end
rails option, just not a good one.
Robby Russell
years ago. At the time fcgi was the best solution aside from pure-cgi.
Mongrel became the better solution about a year later and we've not
looked back. You'll find much better documentation for mongrel
nowadays and am of the opinion that if a web hosting provider is
offering fcgi as the default than they're three years behind the
technology. ;)
Robby
Sent from my iPhone
Aníbal Rojas
(RubyCorner.com is one of them) using dynamic FastCGI, they also offer
using Lighttpd with Mogrel in back of Apache to handle proxy requests.
For low to moderated traffic any of this configurations, works pretty
well. They call them Developer plans.
We had to move one application to a VPS plan, with Nginx in the front
of a couple of Mongrels not because the Lighty+Mongrel could not
handle the requests, but because of the heavy traffic driven to hot
linked "Link to us" banner. This heavy traffic over a small static
asset went driven trough Apache to lighty and back, and caused a lot
of stress on Apache.
--
Aníbal Rojas
http://hasmanydevelopers.com
http://rubycorner.com
http://anibal.rojas.com
maerzbow
Hey thanks, guys!
Just to sum it up:
Serving RoR via FCGI works, and is a reliable solution to host RoR
projects.
But you can't expect that it will perform compared to Mongrel etc.
Perhaps you should take the name "Developer plan" serious and host
your production environment not via FCGI.
That's what came to my mind reading the above posts. ... and I am fine
with that!
Mercy
http://blog.odeley.com
Alexey Verkhovsky
> Serving RoR via FCGI works, and is a reliable solution to host RoR
> projects.
When Rails community migrated en masse from various Ruby/FCGI
solutions to Mongrel, it had nothing to do with performance, and
everything with stability under real-life load (or lack thereof).
Maybe something has changed in this department since... based on past
performances, I would be scared to use FCGI for hosting a Ruby app.
--
Alexey Verkhovsky
CruiseControl.rb [http://cruisecontrolrb.thoughtworks.com]
RubyWorks [http://rubyworks.thoughtworks.com]
Aníbal Rojas
fix it? ;-)
Off Topic: Please feel free to register your blog at RubyCorner.com
and help the community grow.