[Mongrel] Deployement options
Zed A. Shaw
zedshaw at zedshaw.com
Wed Feb 28 20:16:06 EST 2007
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:57:02 -0800
"Jeremy Kemper" <jeremy at bitsweat.net> wrote:
> On 2/27/07, Kirk Haines <wyhaines at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/27/07, Pete DeLaurentis <pete at nextengine.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Having multiple servers has been a must in my experience with Mongrel,
> > > mainly because if a task is database / IO bound then other users have to
> > > wait for it.
> > >
> > > I'm using Lighttpd => Pound => 10 Mongrels right now.
> > No, it isn't a must for Mongrel. It may be a must for Rails, but it
> > isn't a must for Mongrel. There is a difference. It's often blurred
> > in both questions and responses, but Mongrel is far more than just a
> > Rails platform.
> This is true. However, his assertion is valid: it's a must for any web app
> that uses blocking API calls, like executing queries using the native mysql
> and postgres clients. That's just life with Ruby threads.
... and eventually people will start asking why there's nearly 10 other
Ruby web frameworks that run fine in Mongrel without a big lock and do
nearly the same things as Rails or even use the same technologies as
Zed A. Shaw, MUDCRAP-CE Master Black Belt Sifu
http://www.awprofessional.com/title/0321483502 -- The Mongrel Book
http://www.lingr.com/room/3yXhqKbfPy8 -- Come get help.
More information about the Mongrel-users