Christopher, Mongrel is not meant to serve static files. It is meant to replace the FCGI part of doing Apache->FCGI->Ruby. Or WhateverBalancer->FCGI- >Ruby.
As Ezra put its here, http://f8p.com/96ktde , "...it is horribly ineficient to serve static files with mongrel..." Most mongrel setups (ones with Apache) use mod_rewrite to server the static files through apache (including cached rails html files). Try this vhost template ( http://f8p.com/6d6i0s ) that uses mod_rewrite to serve static HTML through Apache. -christos On 28 Feb 2007, at 01:48, Christopher Bailey wrote: > As additional info, I ran the same kind of tests with Pen and Nginx > instead of Apache+mod_proxy_balancer, just to get an idea on that > aspect: > > Pen with 1 Mongrel: ~671 req/sec > Nginx with 1 Mongrel: ~612 req/sec > > So these at least show a smaller overhead for the load balancer > aspect. They also are more bare-minimum configured (I don't have > much experience with either of those, so just did the basic Pen > setup where you tell it what port to run on and the ports/domain > +port it's proxying). > > On 2/27/07, Christopher Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm > trying to do some initial benchmarking of our setup, mainly just to > establish baselines. I'm essentially using the process Zed > outlines in a previous message: > http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/2006-May/000200.html > > What I'm running into is that Mongrel appears only half as fast as > Apache when serving a small static HTML file. If I then add in > Apache with mod_proxy_balancer, going to a single Mongrel, it drops > down to nearly about a third of what pure static Apache will do. > This seems bogus to me, and I suspect I have either some > configuration problem, or something. My understanding from what > I've read is that Mongrel should be fairly close to Apache when > serving static content (at least not only 50% as fast). Is that > right as a generalization? > > Here's some info to back this up. > - Server: HP DL360 dual 3.0GHz Xeons, 4GB RAM, 10k RPM SCSI disks > - OS: Fedora Core 6, up to date as of a few days ago, kernel 2.6.18 > smp > - Apache 2.2.3, with mod_proxy_balancer (the RPM install) > - Mongrel 1.0.1, mongrel_cluster 0.2.1 > - ruby 1.8.5 (2006-12-04 patchlevel 2) > - serving a static HTML file from the Rails app's public directory > - Testing using an identical server, that sits above this one in > the rack, connected to a switch (so it's one hop) > - Using httperf for testing, with the following command: > httperf --server lab05 --port 80 --uri /mongrel_alive.html --num- > conns 10000 > The number of connections I vary to be near the 10 second mark... > > Here's the results: > > - Just Apache, num-conns=15000, ~1400 req/sec > - Direct to Mongrel on port 5000, num-conns=8000, ~740 req/sec > - Apache mod_proxy_balancer to a single Mongrel, num-conns=5000, > ~475 req/sec > > So, I'm incurring a massive penalty for the balancer/cluster > setup. In production we will be using hardware load balancers, but > even still, my understanding was that instead of a drop from 1400 > to 740, it should be somewhat closer (say at least over 1000). > > My configuration is what seems to be the usual thing documented say > in Rails Cookbook, on various blogs, and so on. I can post the > details if needed. > > What would folks suggest, or what comments do you have? > > > _______________________________________________ > Mongrel-users mailing list > Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users _______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
