[Mongrel] mongrel, apache 2.0 & s
bill at tribley.org
Sat Mar 17 23:54:03 EDT 2007
I tried to use 2.0 several times from 2002 - 2005 . I had problems with file uploads, integrating programs like Tomcat was really hard, in general my <limited> experience indicated that 2.0 was a great thing for Windows but not so hot for Linux. 2.2 was a major overhaul from what I understand.
I wrote to the Apache mailing list about my problems after trying to upgrade from 1.3 to 2.0.47 (should be mature, right!) and got a flame reply that could be distilled to "you idiot, why don't you just upgrade to the latest version and write again", after which I downgraded to the latest 1.3.xx release and stayed there (my passion is not to tinker with my system, I expect the core components to just work without me becoming expert in them).
Then early in 2006 I discovered that 2.2 had been released. This version is really stable, it had none of the issues I had seen with 2.0 and it offered easy Tomcat integration that worked as advertised without the mod_jk nightmare of 1.3 and 2.0 . So, I was sold. The thing was also faster on my machine (an old/slow P3) than 1.3 . It is a real speed demon on my latest server which is an older 1.9gHz P4 with 1Gb RAM.
From what I can see, if you want to run the best, stable version of 2.x it is 2.2.x, not 2.0x. You should not have issues upgrading, as long as you follow all the directions and compile from source. I don't trust any of the binaries floating around, in my opinion perl or apache should be compiled from source. These packages typically compile on almost any machine, very often the available rpms or other packaged binary distros are old.
All the Ruby docs I have seen show a cluster of Mongrels proxied by Apache 2.2 . The main Ruby site is running 2.0.something, but rumor has it that it was not easy to get it all to work. The published Mongrel articles all refer to 2.2 . 2.2 is stable, why waste time on an outdated version?
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:23:15 -0500, Rob Sanheim wrote:
> On 3/17/07, Bill Tribley <bill at tribley.org> wrote:
>> Apache 2.0 is a real dog, 2.2 is a whole lot better. Is politics or risk
>> the reason for no upgrade? If so, you should consider the stability and
>> security factors. I would strongly recommend against running Apache 2.0 in
>> production when 2.2 is available.
> Can you explain this some more? I know 2.2 has mod_proxy_balancer and some
> other new modules that everyone likes, but are you referring to major
> improvements to the core codebase improving a lot between 2.0 -> 2.2?
> - Rob
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
> ** Classified by CRM114 SS as good **
> CLASSIFY fails; success probability: 0.0024 pR: -2.6152
> Best match to file #1 (nonspam.css) prob: 0.9976 pR: 2.6152 Total features
> in input file: 2254
> #0 (spam.css): features: 1618819, hits: 46901, prob: 2.42e-03, pR: -2.62 #1
> (nonspam.css): features: 1618667, hits: 41575, prob: 9.98e-01, pR: 2.62
More information about the Mongrel-users