Thank you very much for the explanation.. So Monit is more powerful and God is easier to understand / set up and it works good enough.. Thanx again!
Roderick van Domburg wrote: > D. Krmpotic wrote: >> I heard about this! But haven't looked into it yet. Is this a >> replacement for Monit or something to use along with it? > > Yes it is. I've recently looked into it for one of our projects. It > certainly does the job well for what it's designed for: monitoring > processes and restarting them as necessary. > > I do found the internals (the transition) stuff to be a bit fickle, but > maybe it's just getting used to (heck, Capistrano takes getting used to > in the beginning :-). I tried setting up a scheme for issuing STOP and > CONT signals to processes depending on the load, but couldn't get it to > work. > > In summary, I think it's great for your average Rails application and > surrounding server daemons, but it's not up to par with monit for > anything more advanced. And in most cases that will do just fine. I'm > liking it. > > -- > Roderick van Domburg > http://www.nedforce.nl -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Deploying Rails" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-deployment@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-deployment?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
