Naw, its not *quite* that bad off The entire setup is more like so: W2k3 server running SQL 2000 with a few databases, doesn't do anything else. Can't really get away from this machine as we need to regularly pull in new info from some of the other databases on there, and MS does not play nice with other dbs.
2 webservers that are load balanced. Each is a quad-core 2.6+ ghz opteron servers with 11-12GB of ram, and using a SAN back end - so there is the slight headache of how to get the ruby log files to work since they are pointing to shared storage, and use the same config script to boot up. Tried using an environment variable of the hostname to redirect the log directory, but no dice. These servers will also be hosting a couple other low to moderate traffic php sites using apache, but right now they are idling while we are configuring them, waiting for the switchover later this week. So the Mongrel, ruby etc is all on the linux boxes, we just have the headache of connecting them to the MS database. The sessions are stored on the hard drives as is the default for rails, but just for S&G I decided to put the sessions in the DB for a few minutes to see how bad it would get. I was actually surprised, figuring it would be 1/2 or 1/3 as fast... not 1/10! As you said, I should spend a little time getting apache tweaked, then mongrel and work my way down. Anyway to get a ballpark of what the apache max performance ought to be to know when I'm getting close and can move on? -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
