We run a production CommunityEngine driven site using Passenger without any problems so far. Before we've used mongrel behind an Apache using mod_proxy_balancer. This combination was to expensive. Now on the same machine running Passenger we have in average 6 spawners vs. 2 mongrel_cluster with 2 servers each.
just my 2 cents Fritzek poppster.com On Sep 17, 1:08 am, esconsult1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We've had good results with mod_rails in some instances. > Our main servers remain as Litespeed, but that too has its issues, as > sometimes Litespeed RailsRunner processes hang around even after you > shut it down, or restart it, leaving instances of old code. > > Major downsides to a mongrel type environment is the care and feeding > of the mongrel pack itself, and that if you're running many sites on > the same machine, it can be resource intensive with lots of mongrels > hanging around doing nothing. Litespeed and mod_rails will spawn > runners as required. > > In one environment (primarily intranet) on ubuntu, we have had to > restart apache/mod_rails like once every 2 days. In another > environment with Centos, things have been rock solid. There are > certainly a few bugs, but if you have an environment where multiple > sites are on the same box, either Litespeed or mod_rails beats > mongrels hands down in terms of just maintenance, deployment, and, > surprisingly speed too. > > - Ericson Smith > CTO Funadvicehttp://www.funadvice.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
