Really, it comes down to this... Does your site have a revenue model? If it does, the $1299 (or $699 per year, or $65 per month) that Litespeed charges for the 4 CPU version, is chump change. If you run a database on the same server, then you will only need the 2 CPU version for $799 (since you need the other 2 CPU's for OS and database activity anyway). If you don't have a revenue model, then go with one of the free stacks instead.
I don't work for litespeed or anything, we just use their software (both free and paid versions). And really, we do have a revenue model (and are not funded), and after 25 years in the programming deployment webmaster biz, i really dont have time to waste with a stack that bombs out, so discovering litespeed a few months ago was a big boon for us. I just feel sad when I hear people crying over deployment issues with rails when there is at least one decent solution out there available, and they just stick their heads in their sand with Apache + Mongrel or nginx + Mongrel, or Apache + fcgi or lighty + mongrel (all sheperded by monit). All those are pretty good solutions, and we've tried them all, none have come close to making it possible to pretty much relax about the web serving part of the deployment as litespeed has. Zed brought us out of the fcgi ghetto with Mongrel. Amen to that. Its time that someone wrote a good mod_ruby for apache or something. That to me is where we need to head. - Ericson On Jan 4, 2008 2:05 PM, Alexey Verkhovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 4, 2008 1:44 PM, Philip Hallstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If that means limiting the server to a single request handler thread > > > (what else could it be?), then you'd have to buy the non-free version > > > for production use. > > Why? All depends on the amount of traffic. > > Of course. However, on a quad core commodity hardware of today, this, > very roughly speaking, limits your throughput to one fourth of what > your server is otherwise capable of. Even less, if you have a separate > DB box. Ruby is a slow language, therefore Rails apps are almost > invariably CPU-bound. Assuming I understand the meaning of > "Multi-Processor Scalability: No" correctly. > > > We use the free on another pretty large site with over a million uniques > per month > Question is: how many dynamic page hits per second at peak load does > that translate to? Single core, with Rails == 10, maximum. > > By the way, if you are going to handle one request at a time, anyway, > single Mongrel on port 80 works just fine, too. > Litespeed (paid edition) is good for handling multiple low traffic > sites (where you are bottlenecked by RAM, not CPU). It's not bad for > hosting a single application, either, as long as you are OK with > paying money for commercial close-sourced middleware, but a Mongrel > cluster is free and not all that hard to set up and run, either. > > -- > Alexey Verkhovsky > CruiseControl.rb [http://cruisecontrolrb.thoughtworks.com] > RubyWorks [http://rubyworks.thoughtworks.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
