> I believe litespeed says the free version can handle up to 150 requests per
150 *simultaneous* *connections*. Very different from 150 r/s. But yeah, it's still plenty for a lot of sites out there. > second, which means you can handle nearly 13 million hits per day with > decent hardware. Pretty good for the free version I think. > > - Ericson Smith > CTO > http://www.funadvice.com > > On Jan 5, 2008 9:03 AM, ChrisR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Does multiprocessor mean it will only use one physical processor or >> just one core? If it's just one processor then a quad core would be >> fine. >> >> Chris >> >> On Jan 5, 11:41 am, Raymond O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> s.net> wrote: >>> Regarding litespeed and the multiprocessor scalability: I do notice it >>> spawns several ruby processes when you start the server. As far as I can >>> tell, there's nothing in the free version that keeps these ruby >>> processes from being run on multiple cores... So I think you do get >>> some advantage with multiple cores even with the free version. Correct >>> me if I'm wrong though... >>> >>> But just to echo what everyone else has been saying, our company has had >>> great success with the litespeed server. We've been using it for about >>> 6 months now with several rails apps and have had no problems. And >>> whenever I have a question, their support people on their forum usually >>> respond within a few hours with an answer. >>> >>> -Ray >>> >>> -- >>> Posted viahttp://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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
