How small are we talking? Are you thinking about an embedded device? If so, then sqlite is perfect. Remote data access to anything stored in SQLite would require going through an API based on Rails probably, but not too bad.
MySQL can be configured to run on a farily small memory footprint well, and FireBird would also be acceptable. To keep the memory footprint down on a low-usage app, you could always run a single production instance of Mongrel on port 80, or use Nginx and / or Lighttpd to proxy requests to a mongrel cluster for higher usage patterns. Do you have a particular goal for memory usage? Also, don't forget Ruby Enterprise Edition On Jan 23, 9:07 am, Rick Fiorentino <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I am just curious what the options are for small footprint databases. I > understand SQLite is available, are there others in production use as > well? I'd appreciate any recommendations etc. Firebird? > > SQLite seems pretty good but remote access goes out the window because > it is a server-less design if I understand things correctly. > > Also, is it possible to skinny down the ruby and required gems/libraries > distribution? Is there a lite version of Ruby on Rails? > > We have multiple deployment scenarios and it would be advantageous to > have a small footprint distribution. > > Thanks for the help, > Rick > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
