[Mongrel] comparison... why mongrel?
kylekochis at gmail.com
Tue Apr 10 15:16:50 EDT 2007
My personal experiences with FastCGI have been buggy and just not very agile
at all. Setting up FastCGI was always a pain so I tried mongrel which was
just more simple and much less buggy. FastCGI is a little faster than
mongrel because mongrel has to use TCP and FCGI uses unix sockets. But if
you plan on scaling your application(s) to more machines then TCP (mongrel)
is clearly better than using unix sockets (FCGI). So my two main arguments
are agility and scalability. Additionally mongrel has some nice features
that just make life better.
On 4/10/07, Matt M. <goodieboy at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've recently deployed a rails app and our platform is Apache 2.2 +
> mongrel cluster. It seems to be working fine... although no real tests yet.
> I just recently found out that it is *quite* possible that the live server
> will not be getting an update to apache 2.2, and the current version is
> 1.3. So... I've installed Apache 1.3 + FastCGI on the dev server and it's
> running fine but...
> In order to get any chance of having the admins upgrade Apache on the live
> server... they want to know what the advantages are over using FastCGI
> (which is a simple Apache mod install).
> What makes Mongrel different that FastCGI?
> What are the pros and cons of both?
> Thank you for any feedback... I'm off to rdo more research!
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mongrel-users