I'm actually not using Passenger. I use a cluster of 50 mogrels behind an Apache2. Since my app started pre Rails 2.0 (and is only now up to 2.3.8), I'm not using connection pooling (as far as I know :) ). My understanding is that each mongrel instance is maintaining its own db connection. I figure having each instance maintain two connections (one to each db) shouldn't be a bad thing.
As far as resources go, this app is the only thing running on a big Sun box. I'm only using a tiny fraction of the 20GB of ram (in fact, my biggest resource problem is pure CPU processing performance). I'm really not a fan of Sun's large multicore "green thread" processors. They're dog slow per core. For what it's worth, Oracle is the database server. I don't think that should make a difference to my solution. On Sep 20, 7:05 pm, radhames brito <[email protected]> wrote: > wild guessing, i think rails is single threaded and if you make a connection > persistent you will eat all the resources in no time. I believe passenger > loads a rails app per connection but as soon as the client it served the the > app gets unloaded, but if the connection is permanent i think the app would > never unload. > > so maybe in rails 3 you could have a pool of activerecord instances and the > rest of rails dynamically been loaded by passenger -- 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.
