El mié, 30-09-2009 a las 15:24 +0200, Roberto De Ioris escribió: > > > > twitter gains 30% of througput (without refactoring) using REE (1) but > > the really great about passenger is how easy is to use, configure once > > and use in 3each app, i dont need to worryed about what raisl version > > need the app, just confiugre passenger, and put the app in thepassenger > > dirs, restar the server and the apps works like charm. > > > Yes, but this is thanks to REE not passenger.
from the web: "Allows your Ruby on Rails applications to use 33% less memory on average, when used in combination with Phusion Passenger." Is not only about the performance, is about how easy is to deploy apps with passenger (downst matter raisl version or ruby framwork). > rack supports all of this framework, (yes, for some of them, only the > latest release are rack-compliant), if we want to support automagic > configuration we should integrate it in cherokee (for all handlers) not > only for the ruby-environment. but i see that more complex to do and mantain than just integrate passenger. > My company, works with rails from years, we have been the first italian > provider to offer rails-ready hosting before 2006, we have developed > tons of deploy systems, we have used passengers, mongrels, pure-fastcgi > and now uwsgi+rack and the results are always the same: > > deploy is not a real problem, rails/ruby is a resource-devourer > environment (i am not talking about REE obviously) and this is the only > REAL problem. > > I am not against Passenger inclusion (i can even work on its integration > in cherokee as my company has dismembered i during the year), i am > against overcomplex-handler for webservers. is not more complex to have a lot of little tricky wizards for each version of each ruby framework and ruby version?? _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
