Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications
On 16 Jul 2008, at 14:38, Chet Farmer wrote: On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:10 AM, Scott Likens wrote: I'll certainly agree with that. Getting mongrel working with mod_proxy was essentially an exercise in Google and reading blogs. snip Yes. And, frankly, Ruby + gems on most Linux distros is in such a state that I end up maintaining my own Ruby install from source. Given the pain of the recent security holes (for example), I find that this is actually driving me to think I should can it and go for the same suite of PHP apps as everyone else. I will agree with that, as Debian Etch currently has Ruby 1.8.4(2? i forget) with Rubygems 0.92. However is that Ruby's problem? or the Linux distribution you chose? It's definitely Ruby's problem if PHP, Perl, Python, etc., are all running fine out of the box. I'd just like to put in a vote for not Ruby's problem here. I've never had any trouble deploying rails applications. I used to be a mod_perl hacker and that was much, much harder to set up and keep going. The only difference, in my view, is that Rails isn't a commodity solution yet. You can't easily buy some Rails and you don't get an option on the Ubuntu disc to install a good starting Rails setup. A Rails app needs a port, I suppose, so you can't really run one unless you have your own box and it's really not something you should bother with if you just want your blog to be fashionably served. If you have some reason to want Apache as your front end, you have to know how to proxy to another port. The documentation for that is here: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy.html and includes straightforward cut and paste configuration along with some very useful warnings. I don't know anything about mod_rails, but I suspect that unless you want to get fancy with the apache lifecycle, you don't need that much integration. Nginx is a much better front end anyway: fast and simple. There's an excellent cargo config here: http://brainspl.at/articles/2006/09/12/new-nginx-conf-with-rails-caching and some thorough benchmarking here: http://blog.kovyrin.net/2006/08/28/ruby-performance-results/ I've found it perfectly straightforward to set up typo (or radiant, or mephisto: I have sites running on each) using mongrel_cluster, capistrano and an nginx front end. The only things I had to compile were nginx and sphinx. Everything else is apt-gettable (and I think now nginx is too). I use three application servers and one database server and deliver over 100,000 pages a day with typically about a quarter load. It scales well enough for me and it's over two years since the last boot. I certainly couldn't say that when I was desperately propping up 100MB apache processes. Here, you're defaulting back to a knee-jerk defense of what is clearly your pet language. That has no place here. Compared to LAMP- stack stuff, RoR applications are much harder to set up and deploy. They require a totally different approach, and that approach is very poorly documented. This isn't a controversial statement. The documentation is fine. The only problem is that there is no single orthodox solution. I see that as a strength, but it does mean that some expertise is required to choose your recipe. You (Chet) are right in the sense that for the beginner, a working typo blog is probably not as easy to get to as a working php-based blog. For anyone who knows what they're doing there's really no difference and the rails model is much easier to maintain. Most of this is general to rails so it's also worth mentioning that Frédéric is very diligent and responsive and the software is good. He deserves more appreciation, i think. best, will Here, you're defaulting back to a knee-jerk defense of what is clearly your pet language. That has no place here. Compared to LAMP- stack stuff, RoR applications are much harder to set up and deploy. They require a totally different approach, and that approach is very poorly documented. This isn't a controversial statement. --- Don't let your mongoose get cold or dirty, or it will die. (Animals as Friends and How to Keep Them, by Shaw Fisher, Dent 1939) ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications
The documentation is fine. The only problem is that there is no single orthodox solution. I see that as a strength, but it does mean that some expertise is required to choose your recipe. You (Chet) are right in the sense that for the beginner, a working typo blog is probably not as easy to get to as a working php-based blog. For anyone who knows what they're doing there's really no difference and the rails model is much easier to maintain. Most of this is general to rails so it's also worth mentioning that Frédéric is very diligent and responsive and the software is good. He deserves more appreciation, i think. Regarding the dcumentation, I've started to refactor the one we have and published some. I'm taking the doc back on the redmin, and will move *.typosphere.org on it but the blog. If someone here have the time to proofread this : http://redmine.typosphere.org/wiki/typo/Before_Installing_Typo http://redmine.typosphere.org/wiki/typo/Install_Typo_with_Typo_installer http://redmine.typosphere.org/wiki/typo/Install_Typo_from_the_gem http://redmine.typosphere.org/wiki/typo/Secure_Typo_admin_with_HTTPS I will add docs on deploying Typo under various things tonight : – Apache + mod_rails – Apache + fastcgi – Apache + mongrel – Nginx + Thin – Nginx + Fastcgi – Nginx + mongrel – Lighttpd + fastcgi – Lighttpd + Thin – Lighttpd + mongrel However, we do officially recommend and support mod_rails as the best and easiest way to run any Rails app. Regarding my appreciation, I know I've made some mistakes (5.0 was one of them : relying too much on the tests and not testing in production mode enough). However, I prefer having negative feedback as long as it's argumented and documented, it's much better than just yay, your appz is so cool when you want to improve things. Regards, Frédéric -- Frédéric de Villamil [EMAIL PROTECTED]tel: +33 (0)6 62 19 1337 http://fredericdevillamil.com Typo : http://typosphere.org ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications
Scott blathered thusly It's not my ball, it's everyone else's ball. I do not suffer the problem of a 6-month release cycle, or how painful Ruby on Rails is to deploy. I realize I don't see your pain, so perhaps if you could actually write up a way we could make this easier for you? Because clearly I don't get it, and won't get it. So instead of venting your frustration the way you are, please educate us. Let's see... Chet said Doesn't work w/ MarsEdit or TextMate client-side publishing tools and Frederic responded saying You're right, it doesn't in the release but is in the trunk and wait for the next release. Chet said Documentation is sub-optimal and Frederic responded saying You're right, it is sub-optimal because I haven't put too much effort into it. I'll work on that. Chet said Updating the blog is failing and Frederic responded saying You're right, that is a defect that has been fixed in the trunk. It will be in the next release. Chet said Installation and upgrades are somewhat awkward especially compared to more mature solutions implemented in other languages. and Frederic and most everyone else said You're right, they are awkward due to the options and evolving Ruby platform and we choose to put up with that because we like Ruby and Typo but we understand your pain. So now I'm confused - If one of the maintainers is agreeing that Chet's posted issues are both understandable and valid then why would you continue arguing? rjsjr ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Chet Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 16, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Kevin Williams wrote: Let's compare to a Wordpress blog run on Apache using mod_php. The PHP code does not serves all requests. Apache serves up the static content (css, javascript, graphics, etc.). Many popular front-end servers also perform proxying and load balancing, and tons of other functions. Mod_php just runs the PHP code. Most Ruby web apps are served in this fashion rather than by an Apache module because it was easier to implement This must be some radical other definition of easier. At the time Mongrel came around, no one, and I mean no one, would touch the mod_ruby code. Webrick was slow and FastCGI was very buggy at best. Zed Shaw stepped up with a strictly-spec-compliant and fast web server for Ruby. There was much rejoicing and dancing in the streets. You can call it radical if you want to, but it worked very well. (at the time mod_ruby was a memory-leaking nightmare) and it is a more flexible design by virtue of not being tied to Apache and by being proxyable behind any decent http proxy. It's not a bad idea, it's a sound idea. Please settle down and ask polite questions if you truly want to understand and use Typo. If you really think I'm the one that needs to settle down, I think you must have been reading some other thread. I politely asked you to change the tone of your requests, yet you continue to be confrontational. Please stop. Comments such as that's ridiculous and that's a very bad idea and repeatedly saying you're wrong when you've clearly shown that you don't understand why things are the way they are now is just causing trouble. You have issues with Typo and want help. Is this really how you ask for help? I've made it abundantly clear that I am 100% uninterested in installation tweaks right now because I am dealing with bugs in Typo. That's my front-burner issue. If these bugs can't get resolved, the installation issues are irrelevant. I appreciate you explaining the rationale for Mongrel, et. al., above, nevertheless. You're welcome, and thank you for saying so. ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Kevin Williams wrote: At the time Mongrel came around, no one, and I mean no one, would touch the mod_ruby code. Webrick was slow and FastCGI was very buggy at best. Zed Shaw stepped up with a strictly-spec-compliant and fast web server for Ruby. There was much rejoicing and dancing in the streets. You can call it radical if you want to, but it worked very well. I appreciate you giving the backstory here, but having to include another web server, though, is not something I'd describe as easier when compared to other tools that require only one. Please settle down and ask polite questions if you truly want to understand and use Typo. If you really think I'm the one that needs to settle down, I think you must have been reading some other thread. I politely asked you to change the tone of your requests, yet you continue to be confrontational. I was confrontational to Scott because his posts were snide, rude, useless knee-jerk defenses of his pet stack. Please stop. Comments such as that's ridiculous and that's a very bad idea and repeatedly saying you're wrong when you've clearly shown that you don't understand why things are the way they are now is just causing trouble. My complaints really began with this very point; recall one of my original points was the poor state of documentation concerning the idiosyncratic installation requirements of Typo. If it were more clear why I should consider installing another web server just to run Typo from Typo's own docs, perhaps I wouldn't be complaining about the docs. You have issues with Typo and want help. Is this really how you ask for help? I certainly wasn't asking Scott for help, and he certainly wasn't providing any. He jumped in to tell me my assessment of the state of Ruby/Rails/Typo installation was wrong, which is simply incorrect. He's offered nothing of value to me in re: my actual problems. My original posts to this list met with either no response at all, or, more recently, helpful responses from Frederic. Frankly, I was surprised, after that, to get Scott's fanboy eruptions. I believe I dealt with him appropriately, and with a level of grace appropriate for handling such a poster. Chet - Life has improved immeasurably since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously. Hunter S. Thompson ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
On Jul 17, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Chet Farmer wrote: My complaints really began with this very point; recall one of my original points was the poor state of documentation concerning the idiosyncratic installation requirements of Typo. If it were more clear why I should consider installing another web server just to run Typo from Typo's own docs, perhaps I wouldn't be complaining about the docs. You have issues with Typo and want help. Is this really how you ask for help? I certainly wasn't asking Scott for help, and he certainly wasn't providing any. He jumped in to tell me my assessment of the state of Ruby/Rails/Typo installation was wrong, which is simply incorrect. He's offered nothing of value to me in re: my actual problems. My original posts to this list met with either no response at all, or, more recently, helpful responses from Frederic. Frankly, I was surprised, after that, to get Scott's fanboy eruptions. I believe I dealt with him appropriately, and with a level of grace appropriate for handling such a poster. Perhaps you mistook my emails as a knee-jerk nonsense emails. But I was trying to get more information to provide some assistance, however I was not getting any valid feedback. I realize I did not word them in a way that you wanted, however my intent was to get more information to help. I searched through old emails trying to find any information of why you could not do this or that, and Truthfully all I could find were posts related to MarsEdit. Which those bugs have been fixed in trunk, if you want you can try updating to Trunk and see if that fixes your problems? ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
Le 17 juil. 08 à 22:30, Scott Likens a écrit : On Jul 17, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Chet Farmer wrote: My complaints really began with this very point; recall one of my original points was the poor state of documentation concerning the idiosyncratic installation requirements of Typo. If it were more clear why I should consider installing another web server just to run Typo from Typo's own docs, perhaps I wouldn't be complaining about the docs. You have issues with Typo and want help. Is this really how you ask for help? I certainly wasn't asking Scott for help, and he certainly wasn't providing any. He jumped in to tell me my assessment of the state of Ruby/Rails/Typo installation was wrong, which is simply incorrect. He's offered nothing of value to me in re: my actual problems. My original posts to this list met with either no response at all, or, more recently, helpful responses from Frederic. Frankly, I was surprised, after that, to get Scott's fanboy eruptions. I believe I dealt with him appropriately, and with a level of grace appropriate for handling such a poster. Perhaps you mistook my emails as a knee-jerk nonsense emails. But I was trying to get more information to provide some assistance, however I was not getting any valid feedback. I realize I did not word them in a way that you wanted, however my intent was to get more information to help. I searched through old emails trying to find any information of why you could not do this or that, and Truthfully all I could find were posts related to MarsEdit. Which those bugs have been fixed in trunk, if you want you can try updating to Trunk and see if that fixes your problems? I've fixed MetaWeblog API tags issues as well in trunk today. However, it seems marsedit doesn't support that feature (or didn't found how to do so). Other issue for me is that the Metaweblog API provides a getCategories method, but no way to getKeywords, which means 2 things : – Using the metaweblog API won't let you see which tags already exist on your blog (our wb based admin interface now have tags autocompletion) – Editing a post will make you delete every tags used so far from this post, unless you remember them and add them by hand. Regarding the documentation, I've been talking with a friend today about what we should provide. Cool things came up, and amongst them the fact we should officially support one installation way of self hosting Typo, which means the easiest one (obvious heh ?). Having to choose between 3 webservers, and 3 ways to serve pages (mod_rails, (Fast)CGI and application server) is just too confusing for people. If they want to deploy their webserver an exotic way (that's to say without Apache + MySQL which are the most widespread things you've ever found on the Internet), it's not our problem. However, we'll keep the existing docs about exotic configs for information purpose. redmine.typosphere.org is a wiki, if someone want to complete... it's up to him / her. Was my 2 cents, now I must leave you, I've a release t finish before sunday and I'd love to add some more fancy things if I can (like autosave). If anyone want to help instead of just trolling :-) -- Frédéric de Villamil [EMAIL PROTECTED]tel: +33 (0)6 62 19 1337 http://fredericdevillamil.com Typo : http://typosphere.org ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
Look. I like Typo. I'm still trying to use it. But mails like this just tick me off. They provide no help to speak of while insisting there is no problem. Also, proofreading is a good idea. On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:22 PM, Scott Likens wrote: To whomever it may concern, I reckon that would be me, among others. I notice the common thread here. How to deploy typo? Why do you think that is? The choices are: a) Typo IS hard to deploy; or b) Typo isn't hard to deploy, but is poorly documented; or c) Typo isn't hard to deploy, and is well documented, but the documentation is hard to find; or d) The people posting this question are all idiots. Hint: It isn't (d), and (a), (b), and (c) are functionally identical. There is many ways to deploy typo, the most common is 1) FastCGI. (It's also the most murky confusing documentation imo, I don't blame this on typo, I blame this on FastCGI Documentation and the people who wrote it). 2) Mongrel/Webrick 3) Phusion Passenger (aka mod_rails?) Now, there's no real difference with Mongrel/Webrick if you run nginx or Apache or lighttpd. It works, it's well documented and takes the most amount of memory (actually all of them really take the same amount of memory, you just don't see the ruby process hanging around using up 140megs of memory). Um, no. It is NOT well documented, or, if it is, those documents are not easy to find. They're not complete at Typosphere, and they're not apparent anywhere else I looked. I saw rote, by-the-numbers list dox, but nothing that explained why I was doing what it said to do, or what the rationale was behind Mongrel vs. mod_ruby, or anything an admin will want to know when making the choices that are part of an installation. If those docs exist and I somehow missed them, I will GLEEFULLY accept pointers. Phusion Passenger... Excellent option, if you have a cheap Dreamhost.com account that is going to be your easiest option, documentation is decent and it's much easier to deploy. First I've heard of it. Maybe it's a great choice; I have no idea. I wish I'd known about it when I first started playing with Typo. So there you have it, 3 basic methods to deploy your blog. You say this as though your post constitutes instructions. This is not the case. If your coding Ruby on Rails chances are this is nothing new to you, and you have no problem with it. But those who have come from the PHP Boat (as we'll call it, a/k/a wordpress, etc) they just untar files into a directory edit a few files, loadup their web browser and bam. It works. Yup. Nice, too. This is, above perhaps all else, why a bad language (PHP) has earned such a dominant market position. This is because the company behind PHP has spent a great deal of time and money at making PHP the dominant language. Er, and PHP itself, or mod_php, or whatever, pretty much Just Works without installing half a dozen more components, proxies, etc. This ease of use took effort, it's true, but it also provides nontrivial value. It doesn't make it better, or worse or anything. (It scales horribly also for those of you who are talking about scaling). Actually, easy to deploy DOES earn an app significant points with pretty much any administrator I know. I consider that better. Let's say you grab a Perl based blog, what's your common problem? Well mod_perl, perl with ithreads enabled. Yeah you can use it as a cgi script and have it exec perl on each page/function. But again, we'll go with it does not scale well. We have Python and django, I know have not touched any of the django software really so I won't go there. Do you have a point here? So let's bust out some simple myths, Rails is hard to deploy, FALSE. In fact Ruby on Rails Applications are quite easy to deploy provided your hosting company gives you an environment where it can deploy sanely. Is this a synonym for provided your hoster does it for you? Because I've installed Rails on several different *nixes over the years, and have *never* found it to be simple to get running in a production environment (i.e., ignoring quickie dev stacks like Locomotive). This is something that DHH has commented on a few times; there is no way to make the pain of deploying a Ruby on Rails app on a bad/ cheap hosting server go away. Is that the fault of Ruby on Rails? or the company you chose to host with? I'll let you decide on that one. If application stack A installs quickly and cleanly, and application stack DHH doesn't, do I care? I'll let you decide on that one. Shared hosting does not equal bad hosting. It's totally appropriate for probably 85-95% of the blogs that exist. Being essentially incompatible with shared hosting environments is a bad move for Rails, and DHH saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Being hard to get running in a hosted environment makes Ruby on Rails less appealing, and
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications
Chet Farmer wrote: Now, there's no real difference with Mongrel/Webrick if you run nginx or Apache or lighttpd. It works, it's well documented and takes the most amount of memory (actually all of them really take the same amount of memory, you just don't see the ruby process hanging around using up 140megs of memory). Um, no. It is NOT well documented, or, if it is, those documents are not easy to find. I'll certainly agree with that. Getting mongrel working with mod_proxy was essentially an exercise in Google and reading blogs. It doesn't make it better, or worse or anything. (It scales horribly also for those of you who are talking about scaling). Actually, easy to deploy DOES earn an app significant points with pretty much any administrator I know. I consider that better. Yes. And, frankly, Ruby + gems on most Linux distros is in such a state that I end up maintaining my own Ruby install from source. Given the pain of the recent security holes (for example), I find that this is actually driving me to think I should can it and go for the same suite of PHP apps as everyone else. ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
Chet, Which portion of the documentation needs to be revised? FastCGI? Mongrel? I suppose someone can whip up some instructions on how to make the config.ru for Passenger if need be. Typo is imo extremely easy to deploy and get up in running in under 5 minutes. If your having a problem deploying typo please elaborate and tell us what the problem is with you deploying Typo so we can help you deploy it? I can read over old e-mails however that does not always constitute the current situation. Specifics are excellent, like are you using Apache 2.0? 2.2? 1.3? How are you attempting to deploy it via FastCGI? Mongrel? As far as Phusion Passenger (http://www.modrails.com/) it's actually if you look at their site they even have tested Typo with it (http://www.modrails.com/documentation.html ). Ideally, one would like to use Swiftiply (Mongrel with some added performance), but that's not here nor there. In typo 4.1.1 (I won't reference a recent version because I don't have one installed currently) there is typo/installer and inside there is examples for apache13 apache20 (which works for 22) and lighttpd (fastcgi). For the most part you should just have to Copy Paste, modify the small things and go. But I will leave the question open here, How can we help you deploy Typo? be as specific as possible. On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:24 PM, Chet Farmer wrote: Look. I like Typo. I'm still trying to use it. But mails like this just tick me off. They provide no help to speak of while insisting there is no problem. Also, proofreading is a good idea. On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:22 PM, Scott Likens wrote: To whomever it may concern, I reckon that would be me, among others. I notice the common thread here. How to deploy typo? Why do you think that is? The choices are: a) Typo IS hard to deploy; or b) Typo isn't hard to deploy, but is poorly documented; or c) Typo isn't hard to deploy, and is well documented, but the documentation is hard to find; or d) The people posting this question are all idiots. Hint: It isn't (d), and (a), (b), and (c) are functionally identical. There is many ways to deploy typo, the most common is 1) FastCGI. (It's also the most murky confusing documentation imo, I don't blame this on typo, I blame this on FastCGI Documentation and the people who wrote it). 2) Mongrel/Webrick 3) Phusion Passenger (aka mod_rails?) Now, there's no real difference with Mongrel/Webrick if you run nginx or Apache or lighttpd. It works, it's well documented and takes the most amount of memory (actually all of them really take the same amount of memory, you just don't see the ruby process hanging around using up 140megs of memory). Um, no. It is NOT well documented, or, if it is, those documents are not easy to find. They're not complete at Typosphere, and they're not apparent anywhere else I looked. I saw rote, by-the-numbers list dox, but nothing that explained why I was doing what it said to do, or what the rationale was behind Mongrel vs. mod_ruby, or anything an admin will want to know when making the choices that are part of an installation. If those docs exist and I somehow missed them, I will GLEEFULLY accept pointers. Phusion Passenger... Excellent option, if you have a cheap Dreamhost.com account that is going to be your easiest option, documentation is decent and it's much easier to deploy. First I've heard of it. Maybe it's a great choice; I have no idea. I wish I'd known about it when I first started playing with Typo. So there you have it, 3 basic methods to deploy your blog. You say this as though your post constitutes instructions. This is not the case. If your coding Ruby on Rails chances are this is nothing new to you, and you have no problem with it. But those who have come from the PHP Boat (as we'll call it, a/k/a wordpress, etc) they just untar files into a directory edit a few files, loadup their web browser and bam. It works. Yup. Nice, too. This is, above perhaps all else, why a bad language (PHP) has earned such a dominant market position. This is because the company behind PHP has spent a great deal of time and money at making PHP the dominant language. Er, and PHP itself, or mod_php, or whatever, pretty much Just Works without installing half a dozen more components, proxies, etc. This ease of use took effort, it's true, but it also provides nontrivial value. It doesn't make it better, or worse or anything. (It scales horribly also for those of you who are talking about scaling). Actually, easy to deploy DOES earn an app significant points with pretty much any administrator I know. I consider that better. Let's say you grab a Perl based blog, what's your common problem? Well mod_perl, perl with ithreads enabled. Yeah you can use it as a cgi script and have it exec perl on each page/function. But again, we'll go with it does not scale
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications
On Jul 16, 2008, at 12:14 AM, Rodger Donaldson wrote: Chet Farmer wrote: Now, there's no real difference with Mongrel/Webrick if you run nginx or Apache or lighttpd. It works, it's well documented and takes the most amount of memory (actually all of them really take the same amount of memory, you just don't see the ruby process hanging around using up 140megs of memory). Um, no. It is NOT well documented, or, if it is, those documents are not easy to find. I'll certainly agree with that. Getting mongrel working with mod_proxy was essentially an exercise in Google and reading blogs. Why is mod_proxy working with mongrel such an exercise? Proxy * Order deny,allow Allow from all /Proxy ProxyPass / http://localhost:4485 ProxyPassReverse / http://localhost:4485 ProxyPreserveHost On That's it as a whole, 7 whole lines. Add that to your apache configuration in a Virtualhost area for your blog and startup typo and you should be golden. It doesn't make it better, or worse or anything. (It scales horribly also for those of you who are talking about scaling). Actually, easy to deploy DOES earn an app significant points with pretty much any administrator I know. I consider that better. Yes. And, frankly, Ruby + gems on most Linux distros is in such a state that I end up maintaining my own Ruby install from source. Given the pain of the recent security holes (for example), I find that this is actually driving me to think I should can it and go for the same suite of PHP apps as everyone else. I will agree with that, as Debian Etch currently has Ruby 1.8.4(2? i forget) with Rubygems 0.92. However is that Ruby's problem? or the Linux distribution you chose? If they are willing to give you that old of Ruby, what makes you think the PHP is any more recent? ... Now I agree they should update that to at least 1.8.6, and Rubygems 1.2.0, however they have their release cycle and unless it's a critical security fix you will never get it until the next release. Ubuntu's way of handling Ruby is quite odd to say the least. I tried CentOS 5 out of the box, got Warehouseapp running for a customer in a matter of minutes however. yum worked perfectly for me, and I had 0 issues with it. I've tried Gentoo and it's worked excellent also, so perhaps some research is in order? ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:10 AM, Scott Likens wrote: I'll certainly agree with that. Getting mongrel working with mod_proxy was essentially an exercise in Google and reading blogs. Why is mod_proxy working with mongrel such an exercise? Beats me. Perhaps you should refer to the first portion of my reply to you last night. It's clearly a problem, though. It's also a problem that the purpose of Mongrel isn't made clear; you just have to take on faith that it's something you need to do based on the sketchy installation guide. Yes. And, frankly, Ruby + gems on most Linux distros is in such a state that I end up maintaining my own Ruby install from source. Given the pain of the recent security holes (for example), I find that this is actually driving me to think I should can it and go for the same suite of PHP apps as everyone else. I will agree with that, as Debian Etch currently has Ruby 1.8.4(2? i forget) with Rubygems 0.92. However is that Ruby's problem? or the Linux distribution you chose? It's definitely Ruby's problem if PHP, Perl, Python, etc., are all running fine out of the box. Here, you're defaulting back to a knee-jerk defense of what is clearly your pet language. That has no place here. Compared to LAMP-stack stuff, RoR applications are much harder to set up and deploy. They require a totally different approach, and that approach is very poorly documented. This isn't a controversial statement. --- Don't let your mongoose get cold or dirty, or it will die. (Animals as Friends and How to Keep Them, by Shaw Fisher, Dent 1939) ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:04 AM, Scott Likens wrote: Which portion of the documentation needs to be revised? FastCGI? Mongrel? Honestly, all of it. I know that's a broad answer, but it's the truth. Compare the installation experience of a LAMP stack tool to Typo's and you'll see the huge gap. In particular, deeper descriptions of why Mongrel needs to be involved, what the alternatives to a Mongrel configuration are, and why one might choose one approach over the other are ALL questions that need to be addressed. I made that clear in my prior post. Typo is imo extremely easy to deploy and get up in running in under 5 minutes. Here, you're just plain wrong. If your having a problem deploying typo please elaborate and tell us what the problem is with you deploying Typo so we can help you deploy it? I had problems getting mine to run, that's certainly true. But at this point my Typo runs (just not in the way I really want it do; the machine can't also run Apache -- as, again, I've made clear before). My issues are bugs in Typo. If I can't get those bugs resolved, Typo's quirky and difficult installation issues will become academic, as I'll have to migrate to something else. The important bugs to ME are: -- my feeds do not dynamically update. They get created when first requested, but are then frozen in amber. -- Typo does not work properly with MarsEdit or other stand-alone editors. This is a show-stopper for me. I also have some other outstanding questions regarding updating my Typo, and verifying the version I have, but those are in another mail I posted early yesterday, I believe, and are part of a dialog with Frederic. - How do I verify what version of Typo I have? - How is it best to upgrade Typo? What specific steps should be taken, and why? --- They say no mortal woman was enough for him so he made one himself outta whiskey an liquors an ale, says me. An he loved her like a lumberjack made of eating loves a woman made of ham. (Fafblog 2004-08-05) ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications
Chet Farmer wrote: On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:10 AM, Scott Likens wrote: I'll certainly agree with that. Getting mongrel working with mod_proxy was essentially an exercise in Google and reading blogs. Why is mod_proxy working with mongrel such an exercise? Beats me. Perhaps you should refer to the first portion of my reply to you last night. Explanation by analogy would be helpful; Mogrel fills a role similar to that of Tomcat for JSP applications would be a good starting point for most people with experience with web apps. The best explanations of how to make it all hang together well I found were at http://blog.codahale.com/2006/06/19/time-for-a-grown-up-server-rails-mongrel-apache-capistrano-and-you/, http://jonathan.tron.name/2006/07/26/apache-2-0-x-mongrel-mod_proxy-mod_rewrite-configuration but one of those is talking about another Rails blog tool, of course. This would require Typosphere to be online and updated from time to time. It's definitely Ruby's problem if PHP, Perl, Python, etc., are all running fine out of the box. It is a problem with Ruby Gems specifically that Gems don't integrate as smoothly as extending Perl with non-packaged CPAN modules does on major Linux distros. ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications
Scott Likens wrote: On Jul 16, 2008, at 12:14 AM, Rodger Donaldson wrote: Chet Farmer wrote: Now, there's no real difference with Mongrel/Webrick if you run nginx or Apache or lighttpd. It works, it's well documented and takes the most amount of memory (actually all of them really take the same amount of memory, you just don't see the ruby process hanging around using up 140megs of memory). Um, no. It is NOT well documented, or, if it is, those documents are not easy to find. I'll certainly agree with that. Getting mongrel working with mod_proxy was essentially an exercise in Google and reading blogs. Why is mod_proxy working with mongrel such an exercise? That's it as a whole, 7 whole lines. Add that to your apache configuration in a Virtualhost area for your blog and startup typo and you should be golden. At which point you wonder why everything is running so slow, and you discover that mongrel really, really sucks at delivering image files and the like. So your 7 line example works if you want horrible performance with even a trivial number of users. I've tried Gentoo and it's worked excellent also, so perhaps some research is in order? Actually, I've used Ruby on a number of the Linux problems, and the interaction of Gems and Ruby is a problem on all of them. A snide and condescendng tone does not change this fact, it merely convinces people they don't want to bother using typo. ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications
On Jul 16, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Rodger Donaldson wrote: Why is mod_proxy working with mongrel such an exercise? That's it as a whole, 7 whole lines. Add that to your apache configuration in a Virtualhost area for your blog and startup typo and you should be golden. At which point you wonder why everything is running so slow, and you discover that mongrel really, really sucks at delivering image files and the like. So your 7 line example works if you want horrible performance with even a trivial number of users. I absolutely agree. Mongrel does suck for delivering images, however that is part of scaling and proper design. If you use Swiftiply it does take some of the pain away, but Mongrel has certain problems (or should I say rails really?) images, uploading images... bone jarring pain. If you have let's say a gallery, and you want it to send 80 thumbnails to a user. Well that's just inefficient when you can have Apache or whatever web server you have handle the images in 1/32nd of the time. FastCGI really does not make that pain go away, it's usually easier to host your images on apache and have your 'rails app' reflect where the images are to be pulled. Lessens the amount of requests per second to Mongrel(or whatever you use) which can make your web app smoother as well as allows other users to take up the requests that the images were sucking up. I've tried Gentoo and it's worked excellent also, so perhaps some research is in order? Actually, I've used Ruby on a number of the Linux problems, and the interaction of Gems and Ruby is a problem on all of them. A snide and condescendng tone does not change this fact, it merely convinces people they don't want to bother using typo. That would be a side effect, some call it 'maturity', I prefer to consider it stagnation. It's been many years since there was a major Perl version release. When Perl6 starts coming in Linux Distributions you'll feel the same exact pain as you do for Ruby. I like to call this side effect People telling you what to run, how to run it, and what version to run. I dislike that side effect because if you want to run your own version it becomes painful (even for Systems Administrators it's painful) and after a certain point you have to decide when it's too much and you need a change so you don't have to keep doing this. I disagree that it's a typo issue really, the issues you are feeling are more Ruby issues and Ruby on Rails, not Typo. You can ask Someone to update this and update that and make Ruby a better experience, but if they don't give a damn to do that ... There's not much to do. I consider that one of the pains of running a Binary Distribution. They attempt to lock you into what they offer you, and make it a hassle to go beyond that. ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:38 AM, Chet Farmer wrote: Beats me. Perhaps you should refer to the first portion of my reply to you last night. It's clearly a problem, though. It's also a problem that the purpose of Mongrel isn't made clear; you just have to take on faith that it's something you need to do based on the sketchy installation guide. After reading your posts I'm not sure if you are using Debian, or what... however Here's a few articles courtesy of the folks at mongrel. http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/wiki/Debian http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/wiki/OSX http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/wiki/Lighttpd (Formatting seems to be off on the last 2) however you get the idea. It's definitely Ruby's problem if PHP, Perl, Python, etc., are all running fine out of the box. Here, you're defaulting back to a knee-jerk defense of what is clearly your pet language. That has no place here. Compared to LAMP- stack stuff, RoR applications are much harder to set up and deploy. They require a totally different approach, and that approach is very poorly documented. This isn't a controversial statement. Do you have the latest version of Python 2.5? what if you want to deploy a Django application that requires Python 2.5? and some feature that was not included in your build of python. knee-jerk defense about Perl... it hasn't been updated in 2years? So let's disclude that from the discussion. If your Linux distribution is running an version older then 5.8.4 (current is 5.8.8) you should be pretty much shot. Unfortunately things change rapidly, things are updated, bug fixes made. Some Linux distributions run on a 6-month Release Cycle, so in 6-months they play catchup and update all the things that they can. They miss somethings, however that's not here nor there. My knee-jerk solution is if LAMP is so easy to deploy, then why not use it? or why not use Perl or Python? I admit I love the beauty of the Ruby Language, however if there's something out there that does the same job as Typo and is easier to deploy and works better then I say go ahead. It's unfortunate that MarsEdit was one of your Hanging Chads... I never got around to buying a License of MarsEdit, I just couldn't be bothered with it, I would rather write in TextMate and then copy and paste. However one of my long standing issues with Typo has been ... *drum roll* how I have to insert br's into my posts because I included a html tag, and somehow it broke the whole mess. So either I can have badly formatted posts that look worse then my emails ... or I can force a line break every here and there so make it look cleaner. I do admit though that Frédéric responded slow on the Typo 5.0 Beta (Rails 2) release to my dismay, I lost my typo install twice due to a cache error, and it took several more people to have the same problem before it was even brought up. But overall he try's and that's what counts. ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:43 AM, Chet Farmer wrote: On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:04 AM, Scott Likens wrote: Which portion of the documentation needs to be revised? FastCGI? Mongrel? Honestly, all of it. I know that's a broad answer, but it's the truth. Compare the installation experience of a LAMP stack tool to Typo's and you'll see the huge gap. In particular, deeper descriptions of why Mongrel needs to be involved, what the alternatives to a Mongrel configuration are, and why one might choose one approach over the other are ALL questions that need to be addressed. I made that clear in my prior post. We are comparing an Apple to a Pear, LAMP is not the same as LAMR or a Ruby on Rails install. Please stop comparing it, you are doing nothing useful by doing that. What is mongrel? Let's see here if this quote satisfy's you. Mongrel is a small library that provides a very fast HTTP 1.1 server for Ruby web applications. It is not particular to any framework, and is intended to be just enough to get a web application running behind a more complete and robust web server. What makes Mongrel so fast is the careful use of an Ragel extension to provide fast, accurate HTTP 1.1 protocol parsing. This makes the server scream without too many portability issues. See mongrel.rubyforge.org for more information. A bit technical, but Mongrel is a Web Server. Like Apache, or nginx or lighttpd. Except that all it cares about and knows about is the application in which it is running. Technically you can run it on port 80 (if you run it as root) and remove the whole extra web server from the equation. Mongrel is for Ruby what mod_php is for Rails (bad analogy). It does all the dirty work and forwards the end product to Apache and then to the end-user. You can compare it to Tomcat or Jetty I guess, however that's not here nor there. Typo is imo extremely easy to deploy and get up in running in under 5 minutes. Here, you're just plain wrong. If your having a problem deploying typo please elaborate and tell us what the problem is with you deploying Typo so we can help you deploy it? I had problems getting mine to run, that's certainly true. But at this point my Typo runs (just not in the way I really want it do; the machine can't also run Apache -- as, again, I've made clear before). My issues are bugs in Typo. If I can't get those bugs resolved, Typo's quirky and difficult installation issues will become academic, as I'll have to migrate to something else. The important bugs to ME are: -- my feeds do not dynamically update. They get created when first requested, but are then frozen in amber. -- Typo does not work properly with MarsEdit or other stand-alone editors. This is a show-stopper for me. I also have some other outstanding questions regarding updating my Typo, and verifying the version I have, but those are in another mail I posted early yesterday, I believe, and are part of a dialog with Frederic. - How do I verify what version of Typo I have? - How is it best to upgrade Typo? What specific steps should be taken, and why? Frédéric has pretty much gone into the other problems you addressed. However, the best method of updating/upgrading typo depends on the backend. Let's say you use SQLite3 1) backup your databases in db/ to a separate location 2) unarchive the new version of typo in a separate directory (for staging or testing purposes). 3) copy the backed up databases (do not move them, we want to keep a pristine copy still somewhere) to db/ 4) verify you are using the proper environment (e.g. PRODUCTION / DEVELOPMENT ...) and then run rake db:migrate 5) start typo on a different port then the original typo is running on. 6) Browse to the site by ip:port and verify if everything worked as planned, and if it did not discuss how it did not work properly, and if it did work how it can work easier. ... Now let's say you use MySQL. 1) mysqldump your typo database for backup purposes. 2) mysqlhotcopy -u root -p typo typo2 3) fixup the grants if need be so your typo login can see typo2 (if you use the root account for typo you can skip this step) 4) unarchive the new version of typo, and setup database.yml to see typo2 and the proper credentials and settings. 5) rake db:migrate 6) start typo on a different port and test it out. Of course you'll have to reinstall your plugins and themes. I believe as a standard practice it's best to set the theme to default and disable your plugins before you do the backup. I don't know if Frédéric has resolved the technical details of plugins missing and themes missing and having to goto the admin interface and fix it, or delve into the MySQL database and disable plugins that way. But that's a pretty short write-up. ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
On Jul 16, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Scott Likens wrote: Honestly, all of it. I know that's a broad answer, but it's the truth. Compare the installation experience of a LAMP stack tool to Typo's and you'll see the huge gap. In particular, deeper descriptions of why Mongrel needs to be involved, what the alternatives to a Mongrel configuration are, and why one might choose one approach over the other are ALL questions that need to be addressed. I made that clear in my prior post. We are comparing an Apple to a Pear, LAMP is not the same as LAMR or a Ruby on Rails install. Please stop comparing it, you are doing nothing useful by doing that. Are you really saying you can't compare a Ruby app with a LAMP app? That's ridiculous. How else can someone decide between Typo and MT and WP and etc? No, you're just wrong. It makes PERFECT sense to compare the experience of setting up and using Application X with that of using Application Y if both X and Y are competitors in the same market (i.e., blogging software). What is mongrel? Let's see here if this quote satisfy's you. Mongrel is a small library that provides a very fast HTTP 1.1 server for Ruby web applications. It is not particular to any framework, and is intended to be just enough to get a web application running behind a more complete and robust web server. What makes Mongrel so fast is the careful use of an Ragel extension to provide fast, accurate HTTP 1.1 protocol parsing. This makes the server scream without too many portability issues. See mongrel.rubyforge.org for more information. A bit technical, but Mongrel is a Web Server. Like Apache, or nginx or lighttpd. Except that all it cares about and knows about is the application in which it is running. Technically you can run it on port 80 (if you run it as root) and remove the whole extra web server from the equation. Mongrel is for Ruby what mod_php is for Rails (bad analogy). It does all the dirty work and forwards the end product to Apache and then to the end-user. You can compare it to Tomcat or Jetty I guess, however that's not here nor there. Why on earth would you need to run a second web server? That seems like a really bad idea, frankly, hence my annoyance that the most obvious question (which boils down to WTF?, essentially) isn't addressed. Frédéric has pretty much gone into the other problems you addressed. However, the best method of updating/upgrading typo depends on the backend. Let's say you use SQLite3 1) backup your databases in db/ to a separate location 2) unarchive the new version of typo in a separate directory (for staging or testing purposes). 3) copy the backed up databases (do not move them, we want to keep a pristine copy still somewhere) to db/ 4) verify you are using the proper environment (e.g. PRODUCTION / DEVELOPMENT ...) and then run rake db:migrate What does rake do in this context? 5) start typo on a different port then the original typo is running on. 6) Browse to the site by ip:port and verify if everything worked as planned, and if it did not discuss how it did not work properly, and if it did work how it can work easier. Of course you'll have to reinstall your plugins and themes. To put it mildly, that's a bit bizarre and very unfriendly to the user. I believe as a standard practice Maybe for Typo. Not for anything else I use. Chet Farmer When you've got an RV, a jet pack, and a monkey you really don't need much actual content - KS ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Scott Likens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To whomever it may concern, I notice the common thread here. How to deploy typo? There is many ways to deploy typo, the most common is 1) FastCGI. We all know, it sucks. 2) Mongrel/Webrick Nginx with proxy load balancer to cluster of Thin/Ebb (+unix socket) processes is a much faster. 3) Phusion Passenger (aka mod_rails?) This is the best option. Fast and dead brain simple to deploy (just like PHP). Now, there's no real difference with Mongrel/Webrick Mongrel is much faster than Webrick. Thin is faster than Mongrel, and Ebb is faster than Mongrel or Thin. But those who have come from the PHP Boat (as we'll call it, a/k/a wordpress, etc) they just untar files into a directory edit a few files, loadup their web browser and bam. It works. Phusion mod_passenger (http://www.modrails.com/) works in the very same way. Just copy your files, load web browser and bam. It works. Need to reload application? No problem. Create empty restart.txt file in the tmp folder. Apache will reload the application. No need to restart Apache. No SSH needed. Simple FTP access is all you need. mod_passenger works also with others Ruby frameworks which use Rack,e.g. Merb. It even works also with Python... :) You also forget mention Ruby Enterprise version which uses 33% less memory... It works fine with mod_passenger and lowers the memory footprint. http://www.rubyenterpriseedition.com/ mod_passenger is _the easiest option_ for deployment Rails applications (including Typo). But, there is also another, 4-th deploy option: JRuby. It is also brain dead simple to deploy. Just create WAR file and copy it into webapps Tomcat's folder. That's all! sudo jruby -S gem install warbler, activerecord-jdbc-adapter jruby -S rails my_app For developing use: jruby script/server; jruby script/console etc. For production, just create ROOT.war file (with warble war command) and copy it into webapps folder in Tomcat, Jetty or another Java servlets container. This WAR file contains ALL gems (including JRuby interpreter) so it works fine in all platforms. -- Jaroslaw Zabiello http://blog.zabiello.com ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
On Jul 16, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Chet Farmer wrote: We are comparing an Apple to a Pear, LAMP is not the same as LAMR or a Ruby on Rails install. Please stop comparing it, you are doing nothing useful by doing that. Are you really saying you can't compare a Ruby app with a LAMP app? That's ridiculous. How else can someone decide between Typo and MT and WP and etc? No, you're just wrong. It makes PERFECT sense to compare the experience of setting up and using Application X with that of using Application Y if both X and Y are competitors in the same market (i.e., blogging software). As I said above, you are doing nothing useful in this argument. Stop it. If you care that much passionately, then run Wordpress. The argument is self defeating, because you are comparing apples to pears. You can try this argument on a Django list and see how far you get. What is mongrel? Let's see here if this quote satisfy's you. Mongrel is a small library that provides a very fast HTTP 1.1 server for Ruby web applications. It is not particular to any framework, and is intended to be just enough to get a web application running behind a more complete and robust web server. What makes Mongrel so fast is the careful use of an Ragel extension to provide fast, accurate HTTP 1.1 protocol parsing. This makes the server scream without too many portability issues. See mongrel.rubyforge.org for more information. A bit technical, but Mongrel is a Web Server. Like Apache, or nginx or lighttpd. Except that all it cares about and knows about is the application in which it is running. Technically you can run it on port 80 (if you run it as root) and remove the whole extra web server from the equation. Mongrel is for Ruby what mod_php is for Rails (bad analogy). It does all the dirty work and forwards the end product to Apache and then to the end-user. You can compare it to Tomcat or Jetty I guess, however that's not here nor there. Why on earth would you need to run a second web server? That seems like a really bad idea, frankly, hence my annoyance that the most obvious question (which boils down to WTF?, essentially) isn't addressed. Then I suggest you to take that torch up with the Mongrel Mailing list and ask them. Frédéric has pretty much gone into the other problems you addressed. However, the best method of updating/upgrading typo depends on the backend. Let's say you use SQLite3 1) backup your databases in db/ to a separate location 2) unarchive the new version of typo in a separate directory (for staging or testing purposes). 3) copy the backed up databases (do not move them, we want to keep a pristine copy still somewhere) to db/ 4) verify you are using the proper environment (e.g. PRODUCTION / DEVELOPMENT ...) and then run rake db:migrate What does rake do in this context? Migrations. To Quote from http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/UnderstandingMigrations ActiveRecordMigration allows you to use Ruby to define changes to your database schema, making it possible to use a version control system to keep things synchronized with the actual code. This has many uses, including: * Teams of developers – if one person makes a schema change, the other developers just need to update, and run “rake db:migrate”. * Production servers – run “rake db:migrate” when you roll out a new release to bring the database up to date as well. * Multiple machines – if you develop on both a desktop and a laptop, or in more than one location, migrations can help you keep them all synchronized. In essence, your database has a 'version' number in it, and if someone adds a new model, or changes a model a migration is also made. So that you can run 'rake db:migrate' to ensure your database is up to date and able to do what the new version intends to do. 5) start typo on a different port then the original typo is running on. 6) Browse to the site by ip:port and verify if everything worked as planned, and if it did not discuss how it did not work properly, and if it did work how it can work easier. Of course you'll have to reinstall your plugins and themes. To put it mildly, that's a bit bizarre and very unfriendly to the user. With the exception of plugins and themes, I find the upgrade process very relaxing and totally capable. Very straight forward, and easy to do. You can stage an upgrade painlessly and if there's a problem you have not affected your actual blog in any way what so ever. I believe as a standard practice Maybe for Typo. Not for anything else I use. Remind me not to hire you as a Systems Administrator. You should ALWAYS make a backup, upgrade in a an test environment and verify everything happened properly before you roll out the new version. Now I realize that isn't as Cowboy as say Wordpress, where you just slap in the new version and it might upgrade
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications
On Jul 16, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Chet Farmer wrote: Scott, You persist in answering questions that I'm not asking. At this point, I won't give a damn about Typo deployment again until some time *after* the bug fixes I require are deployed, if then. Your ongoing insistence that Typo/Ruby IS TOO! easy to set up and run is, well, tiresome. Please stop. Unfortunately things change rapidly, things are updated, bug fixes made. Some Linux distributions run on a 6-month Release Cycle, so in 6-months they play catchup and update all the things that they can. They miss somethings, however that's not here nor there. My knee-jerk solution is if LAMP is so easy to deploy, then why not use it? or why not use Perl or Python? Seriously? You're going there? If (other thing) is so much better, just USE IT! Do you not realize how petulant that sounds? Are you going to take your ball and go home now? It's not my ball, it's everyone else's ball. I do not suffer the problem of a 6-month release cycle, or how painful Ruby on Rails is to deploy. I realize I don't see your pain, so perhaps if you could actually write up a way we could make this easier for you? Because clearly I don't get it, and won't get it. So instead of venting your frustration the way you are, please educate us. It's unfortunate that MarsEdit was one of your Hanging Chads... I never got around to buying a License of MarsEdit, I just couldn't be bothered with it, I would rather write in TextMate and then copy and paste. Post-from-local-client is a core requirement for me. Cut and paste is for the birds. With Blosxom, I wrote in TextMate and saved. That's it. A cron'd rsync did my posting for me. With proper support for the XML-PRC stuff, I can do that again with Typo; it works with WP and MT just fine via anything that supports that interface, including MarsEdit and TextMate via the blogging bundle. Sounds like an excellent feature to be proposed for Typo then. The proper XML-RPC Support so you can post from TextMate. However one of my long standing issues with Typo has been ... *drum roll* how I have to insert br's into my posts because I included a html tag, and somehow it broke the whole mess. So either I can have badly formatted posts that look worse then my emails ... or I can force a line break every here and there so make it look cleaner. There are lots of ways to solve this. I post in Markdown. I use Textile and I guess that's why I have that problem. I do admit though that Frédéric responded slow on the Typo 5.0 Beta (Rails 2) release to my dismay, I lost my typo install twice due to a cache error, and it took several more people to have the same problem before it was even brought up. But overall he try's and that's what counts. Try that statement at work and see how far you get. Don't get me wrong; I appreciate Frederic's answers very much -- and, not to put too fine a point on it, his English is better than yours -- but eventually I'll make a choice based on function and support, not how hard the maintainers are trying. Then I will stop bothering now, because it's clear that I am wasting my time. ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
On Jul 16, 2008, at 5:09 PM, JZ wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Scott Likens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To whomever it may concern, I notice the common thread here. How to deploy typo? There is many ways to deploy typo, the most common is 1) FastCGI. We all know, it sucks. It sucks, but it takes less memory to quote someone I know who uses Lighttpd + FastCGI. His rather old RSS Reading application took 250 Megabytes of memory, for which is not there in FastCGI Mode. 2) Mongrel/Webrick Nginx with proxy load balancer to cluster of Thin/Ebb (+unix socket) processes is a much faster. If thin supported Streaming (Not Media, but the Mongrel Extension) it would be something I would have no issue using. I've mentioned that to the author of Thin and we'll see how that goes. 3) Phusion Passenger (aka mod_rails?) This is the best option. Fast and dead brain simple to deploy (just like PHP). Now, there's no real difference with Mongrel/Webrick Mongrel is much faster than Webrick. Thin is faster than Mongrel, and Ebb is faster than Mongrel or Thin. But those who have come from the PHP Boat (as we'll call it, a/k/a wordpress, etc) they just untar files into a directory edit a few files, loadup their web browser and bam. It works. Phusion mod_passenger (http://www.modrails.com/) works in the very same way. Just copy your files, load web browser and bam. It works. Need to reload application? No problem. Create empty restart.txt file in the tmp folder. Apache will reload the application. No need to restart Apache. No SSH needed. Simple FTP access is all you need. mod_passenger works also with others Ruby frameworks which use Rack,e.g. Merb. It even works also with Python... :) You also forget mention Ruby Enterprise version which uses 33% less memory... It works fine with mod_passenger and lowers the memory footprint. http://www.rubyenterpriseedition.com/ mod_passenger is _the easiest option_ for deployment Rails applications (including Typo). But, there is also another, 4-th deploy option: JRuby. It is also brain dead simple to deploy. Just create WAR file and copy it into webapps Tomcat's folder. That's all! sudo jruby -S gem install warbler, activerecord-jdbc-adapter jruby -S rails my_app For developing use: jruby script/server; jruby script/console etc. For production, just create ROOT.war file (with warble war command) and copy it into webapps folder in Tomcat, Jetty or another Java servlets container. This WAR file contains ALL gems (including JRuby interpreter) so it works fine in all platforms. I know a few people who have been deploying Merb apps in Tomcat that way. I understand it's a very easy way to pass off a Merb app as a Java Webapp without someone knowing what it really is. As far as Ruby Enterprise Version I was not aware of that, but like everything you don't always find all the options in 1 concise web page. ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Scott Likens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If thin supported Streaming (Not Media, but the Mongrel Extension) it would be something I would have no issue using. I've mentioned that to the author of Thin and we'll see how that goes. Thin depends on the eventmachine library, which is not great for uploads because it is more of a fire-and-forget event-driven architecture and long-running requests mess it up. Mongrel is better at uploads. There is a solution for this for Merb users: http://brainspl.at/articles/2008/04/18/deferred-requests-with-merb-ebb-and-thin I have no idea if something like this can be used in a Rails app, but that would be up to Rails/Typo to make that happen. ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Chet Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why on earth would you need to run a second web server? That seems like a really bad idea, frankly, hence my annoyance that the most obvious question (which boils down to WTF?, essentially) isn't addressed. Let's compare to a Wordpress blog run on Apache using mod_php. The PHP code does not serves all requests. Apache serves up the static content (css, javascript, graphics, etc.). Many popular front-end servers also perform proxying and load balancing, and tons of other functions. Mod_php just runs the PHP code. Most Ruby web apps are served in this fashion rather than by an Apache module because it was easier to implement (at the time mod_ruby was a memory-leaking nightmare) and it is a more flexible design by virtue of not being tied to Apache and by being proxyable behind any decent http proxy. It's not a bad idea, it's a sound idea. Please settle down and ask polite questions if you truly want to understand and use Typo. ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
Re: [typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
On Jul 16, 2008, at 7:12 PM, Scott Likens wrote: Are you really saying you can't compare a Ruby app with a LAMP app? That's ridiculous. How else can someone decide between Typo and MT and WP and etc? No, you're just wrong. It makes PERFECT sense to compare the experience of setting up and using Application X with that of using Application Y if both X and Y are competitors in the same market (i.e., blogging software). As I said above, you are doing nothing useful in this argument. Stop it. If you care that much passionately, then run Wordpress. The argument is self defeating, because you are comparing apples to pears. You can try this argument on a Django list and see how far you get. The problem here, Scott, is that you're the one who's arguing. I stated an uncontroversial position -- RoR apps are harder to deploy than traditional LAMP apps -- and you've gone all apoplectic with fanboy protestations that, frankly, make no sense. Look: I don't care. It's absolutely not important to me today, and I'm 100% done with you. I have problems with Typo that Fred says he's working on, and I appreciate that. What I do NOT appreciate is your incessant browbeating and bombastic Ruby boosterism. Why on earth would you need to run a second web server? That seems like a really bad idea, frankly, hence my annoyance that the most obvious question (which boils down to WTF?, essentially) isn't addressed. Then I suggest you to take that torch up with the Mongrel Mailing list and ask them. If it's something that's considered a common part of a Typo install, then the Typo docs need to address it because it's out of the ordinary for weblogging software. To Quote from http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/UnderstandingMigrations I'll read this later. I am refreshed, however, that you've provided an apparently useful link. In essence, your database has a 'version' number in it, and if someone adds a new model, or changes a model a migration is also made. So that you can run 'rake db:migrate' to ensure your database is up to date and able to do what the new version intends to do. Why is this better than just dropping the SQLite file into the tree after your re-install? (Hypothetically; I haven't tried it.) Of course you'll have to reinstall your plugins and themes. To put it mildly, that's a bit bizarre and very unfriendly to the user. With the exception of plugins and themes, I find the upgrade process very relaxing and totally capable. It's plugins and theme reinstallation I find bizarre. I believe as a standard practice Maybe for Typo. Not for anything else I use. Remind me not to hire you as a Systems Administrator. Based on my exposure to you here, it seems astoundingly unlikely you'll ever be in a position to hire anyone with my resume. My reference here is to the need to reinstall plugins and themes, not standard pre-patch/pre-upgrade backups. In my career so far, my experience is much more defined by my own refusal to hire doctrinaire platform zealots. Not to mention that is part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Matrix (http://www.crcdataprotection.com/solutions/sox_compliance.asp ) SarBox is so often a part of blog culture. Because clearly I don't get it, and won't get it. This, at least, is abundantly clear. plonk Chet Farmer When you've got an RV, a jet pack, and a monkey you really don't need much actual content - KS ___ Typo-list mailing list Typo-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
