Can deploying Rails in production be easier than this?

[George Wang]

Fellow Rail users and developers,

Right now the easiest way to run Rails is in combination with Mongrel.
However, it may not be a good idea to expose Mongrel directly to the
outside world in a high-load production environment. In-addition,
Mongrel_cluster + proxy + load balancer have to be used even for a
single server deployment making the unified setup more complicated than
needs be.

Today, we released LiteSpeed Web Server 2.2 with major enhancement on
Rails configuration. With 2.2 release, you only need to tell LSWS the
Rail application's root directory and URL bind paths. LSWS will take
care of everything else. No more manual configuring of FCGI, 404
handler/rewrite rules, proxy, load balancing, and etc.

Our new wiki for Rails Easy configuration:
http://www.litespeedtech.com/support/wiki/doku.php?id=litespeed_wiki:ruby_rails_easy

We believe we have created the easiest way to deploy Rails in a
production level environment with a track-record for scalability and
reliability.

Best Regards,
George Wang
http://www.litespeedtech.com/

[Jeremy Kemper]

On 8/25/06, George Wang <gw...@litespeedtech.com> wrote:

Today, we released LiteSpeed Web Server 2.2 with major enhancement on
Rails configuration. With 2.2 release, you only need to tell LSWS the
Rail application's root directory and URL bind paths. LSWS will take
care of everything else. No more manual configuring of FCGI, 404
handler/rewrite rules, proxy, load balancing, and etc.

Our new wiki for Rails Easy configuration:
http://www.litespeedtech.com/support/wiki/doku.php?id=litespeed_wiki:ruby_rails_easy

We believe we have created the easiest way to deploy Rails in a
production level environment with a track-record for scalability and
reliability.

This is awesome, George.  Great work.

jeremy

[Adrian Madrid]

George,

I'm not very well versed in Litespeed but from what I read this would make my life easier at deploying my apps. Since I'm on a small budget will this new development work in the free version? What will I be really missing from the paid version?

Thanks in advance,


Adrian Madrid

On 8/25/06, George Wang <gw...@litespeedtech.com > wrote:

--
Adrian Esteban Madrid

[Marston]

Very nice, I saw LiteSpeed a little while ago as an alternative and
have been really impressed with it so far. We're definitely planning
on using it in production when we launch.

[George Wang]

Adrian,

Yes, the new feature is available in the free version. The main difference between the free and paid version is the scalability, free version can take 300 concurrent connections, paid version is unlimited. Paid version is faster than free version.
More details is available at http://www.litespeedtech.com/products/webserver/editions/

Best Regards,
George

development work in the

[fanta...@gmail.com]

This is great news for the Rails community. I know I have been itching
to have a more streamlined rails install and run-time procedure.
Frankly, the current methods just add layers and layers of latency.

Posted on Digg.

http://digg.com/software/LiteSpeed_Best_platform_to_host_Ruby_on_Rails

Digg if you to support litespeed in its rubyrails efforts.

[Adrian Madrid]

George,

Thanks for the info. I'm testing it right now. One suggestion: get a designer for the admin interface. It looks so 1994! ;-)

Thanks again,

--
Adrian Esteban Madrid

[George Wang]

Thanks for the suggestion, we plan to renovate the admin interface for the 3.0 release. :-)

[Zed Shaw]

Good work George, I actually really like litespeed.

One thing you might want to look at is a set of instructions on how this
integrates with capistrano. That's currently the big motivator for lots
of deployments today, and it's not too clear how your control panel
integrates with command line operations from capistrano.

--
Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/
http://www.lingr.com/room/3yXhqKbfPy8 -- Come get help.

[linux user]

Please consider win32 release seriously..

-daya

[George Wang]

Hi Zed,

> Good work George, I actually really like litespeed.
>

Thanks!

> One thing you might want to look at is a set of instructions on how this
> integrates with capistrano. That's currently the big motivator for lots
> of deployments today, and it's not too clear how your control panel
> integrates with command line operations from capistrano.
>

Absolutely, that's the next thing on our to-do list. We will have our
LiteSpeed Capistrano integration guide line on our Wiki soon. It should
be very easy actually.

Please stay tuned. :-)

George

[George Wang]

Hi Daya,

Please consider win32 release seriously..

Due to the dramatic differences between Windows and Unix(s), porting the whole LSWS product is a not a easy task, however, a dedicated Rails application server is possible, if the demand is high enough. :-)

Thanks,
George

[Justin Forder]

Would a VMWare image be a good way of giving Windows users something to
work with? It could contain a configured and running LiteSpeed/Rails/DB
setup on Linux or BSD.

regards

Justin

[hemant]

I am currently using mongrel + apache 2.2 with mod_proxy_balancer.

The LSAPI stuff got me a little confused, is it that if i use LSAPI of Litespeed and remove mongrel, it will be faster? Or it is meant to be in conjunction with mongrel?


I was just wondering, what is the best configuration with Litespeed?

--
nothing much to talk

[Justin Pease]

George Wang <gwang@...> writes:

> Absolutely, that's the next thing on our to-do list. We will have our
> LiteSpeed Capistrano integration guide line on our Wiki soon. It should
> be very easy actually.
>
> Please stay tuned.

George:

I'm definitely interested in trying your setup. Any estimate on
when your Capistrano integration guide will be online?

Are there any issues running LiteSpeed along side Apache,
specifically 1.3. I would like to do the majority of my web
development in RoR - but I need to continue offering cPanel
to my customers which is only Apache1.3 compatible.

--

Justin Pease

[Zed Shaw]

On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 02:23 +0530, hemant wrote:
> I am currently using mongrel + apache 2.2 with mod_proxy_balancer.
>
> The LSAPI stuff got me a little confused, is it that if i use LSAPI of
> Litespeed and remove mongrel, it will be faster? Or it is meant to be
> in conjunction with mongrel?
>
>
> I was just wondering, what is the best configuration with Litespeed?

Litspeed is independent of Mongrel if you use their LSAPI setup. If you
use their proxy config then you need to use Mongrel.

[George Wang]

Due to the dramatic differences between Windows and Unix(s), porting the
whole LSWS product is a not a easy task, however, a dedicated Rails
application server is possible, if the demand is high enough. :-)
    

Would a VMWare image be a good way of giving Windows users something to 
work with? It could contain a configured and running LiteSpeed/Rails/DB 
setup on Linux or BSD.
  

Justin,

Thanks! That's a pretty good idea, and pretty easy to do. It is good solution for someone familiar with Linux to try it on a windows machine.

George

[George Wang]

Hi Justin Pease,

> I'm definitely interested in trying your setup. Any estimate on
> when your Capistrano integration guide will be online?
>

Maybe in next week. :-)

> Are there any issues running LiteSpeed along side Apache,
> specifically 1.3. I would like to do the majority of my web
> development in RoR - but I need to continue offering cPanel
> to my customers which is only Apache1.3 compatible.
>

There should not be any problem to run LiteSpeed along side Apache.
However, LiteSpeed is engineered to be Apache interchangeable by using
Apache's httpd.conf directly.
We have users who just replaced Apache with LiteSpeed while managing
hosting account in cPanel. :-)

Best Regards,
George

> --
>
> Justin Pease
>
>
>
> >
>
>

[George Wang]

LiteSpeed can be used together with Mongrel or Ruby LSAPI, LSAPI will give a little bit better performance according third party benchmarks, but the difference is not that big.
http://wota.jp/ac/?date=20060608

Rails easy configuration is available with LSAPI.

Best Regards,
George

[Amr Malik]

George Wang wrote:
> Fellow Rail users and developers,
>

> 8x.....snip...

>
> Our new wiki for Rails Easy configuration:
> http://www.litespeedtech.com/support/wiki/doku.php?id=litespeed_wiki:ruby_rails_easy
>
> We believe we have created the easiest way to deploy Rails in a
> production level environment with a track-record for scalability and
> reliability.
>
> Best Regards,
> George Wang
> http://www.litespeedtech.com/

I believe you're absolutely right. :) After reading your post, it took
me about 30 minutes to get this whole thing installed and my rForum
install running on litespeed and all I did was just followed the wiki
link that was posted.

I am truly impressed. Now only if I could get that dang plugin to stop
raping my rForum's name-space I'd be a happy camper. Alas, not all
things are meant to deliver on their promises (unlike litespeed I
suppose)

Finally.. something which actually works as advertised! WHAT A CONCEPT!

kudos!

-A

[Justin Pease]

George Wang <gwang@...> writes:

> However, LiteSpeed is engineered to be Apache interchangeable by using
> Apache's httpd.conf directly.
> We have users who just replaced Apache with LiteSpeed while managing
> hosting account in cPanel.

Wow. That sounds great. I'm definitely going to be checking this out more.
Sounds to me like an ideal VPS setup - get fast RoR and still keep your cPanel.

--

Justin Pease

[Amr Malik]

George, do you have any links to info about getting wordpress running
with litespeed? I can't seem to post on your forums right now due to
mail server being down. I would like to move completely off of apache
which was serving one of the wordpress blogs till recently.

Thanks,

-A

[Amr Malik]

sorry Off Topic. My apologies.

[George Wang]

Amr,

Thank you for your praise.
Once you get familiar with LiteSpeed and have the infrastructure ready, deploying a new Rails application should take about one minute, we believe. :-)

Have fun!
George

[se...@sozonoff.com]

Hi,

Does anyone know if the "upload with progress bar" feature works with
Litespeed and LSAPI without having to patch anything?

Thanks,
Serge

[George Wang]

Serge,

Unfortunately, LiteSpeed buffer the whole request before forwarding it
to backend Rails dispatcher, so "upload progress bar" does not work with
LiteSpeed.
On the other hand, I think one upload session will tie up one valuable
Rails dispatcher, if the upload takes long time, it will became a
serious scalability issue. Number of users can be served is limited by
number of backend Rails dispatchers.

Best Regards,
George Wang