On 26/03/2010, at 3:32 PM, Joshua Partogi wrote: > Hi all, > > Some people suggested me to use Passenger for running Rails on > production. The question now is, which webserver is more > recommendable, Apache or nginx? I had experience with nginx when using > it with mongrel, but I am not sure whether nginx and Passenger is any > good because from what I read Passenger support for nginx has only > been added recently. Any experience on this that you can share here?
In my opinion, nginx. By virtually every metric, nginx is better: — memory footprint — excellent config syntax — static webserving speed — maintaining performance under high load (nginx uses an event loop, unlike apache which uses a pool of either threads or processes, depending on your build) — build time (about 30 seconds for a full build) So unless you have a specific reason to use apache, like a particular module, I think nginx is a clear choice. One thing to consider with nginx is that it can't really be properly supported by a binary package manager. Modules are statically linked, which means that to add or remove modules, you have to rebuild the whole webserver. If you want to get going now and then learn the details later, I maintain well-tested babushka deps for nginx. $ babushka 'webserver installed' Will set you up with a full nginx/passenger stack and a sensible default config. Then you can set up static, proxy or passenger virtualhosts with $ babushka 'vhost enabled' Any apache users who feel like writing some deps for it, that'd be awesome too :) —ben_h -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
