Comments on: Ruby Enterprise Edition and Passenger http://www.webficient.com/2008/06/24/ruby-enterprise-edition-and-passenger Your Web Development Partner Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:06:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: tommy http://www.webficient.com/2008/06/24/ruby-enterprise-edition-and-passenger#comment-301 tommy Mon, 04 May 2009 02:27:26 +0000 tag:webficient.com,2008-06-24:20#comment-301 Have you thought about using Nginx/Passenger setup? The downside for apache/passenger is the static content serving. With Nginx/Passenger, this is resolved. Have you thought about using Nginx/Passenger setup?

The downside for apache/passenger is the static content serving. With Nginx/Passenger, this is resolved.

]]> By: Phil Misiowiec http://www.webficient.com/2008/06/24/ruby-enterprise-edition-and-passenger#comment-10 Phil Misiowiec Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:58:22 +0000 tag:webficient.com,2008-06-24:20#comment-10 Definitely. You can actually find a few posts on this architecture, albeit non-mod rails. Check out <a href="http://blog.kovyrin.net/2006/05/18/nginx-as-reverse-proxy/" rel="nofollow">this link</a> and <a href="http://wiki.joyent.com/accelerators:nginx_apache_proxy" rel="nofollow">this one</a>. What I liked about the above benchmarks, though, was that although the RPS were a bit lower, Apache could take a beating without heavy swapping or pegging the processor. You hit the nail on the head re: easy deployment. Over 90% of apps won't have the traffic to warrant a more complex architecture. Definitely. You can actually find a few posts on this architecture, albeit non-mod rails. Check out this link and this one. What I liked about the above benchmarks, though, was that although the RPS were a bit lower, Apache could take a beating without heavy swapping or pegging the processor. You hit the nail on the head re: easy deployment. Over 90% of apps won’t have the traffic to warrant a more complex architecture.

]]> By: mormon http://www.webficient.com/2008/06/24/ruby-enterprise-edition-and-passenger#comment-8 mormon Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:36:39 +0000 tag:webficient.com,2008-06-24:20#comment-8 Cool. Makes me wonder if you can have nginx that forwards to apache for the dynamic content. Oh wait if you're going to do that then you may as well just run mongrel. But still the ease of installation is a winner for small sites. -R Cool. Makes me wonder if you can have nginx that forwards to apache for the dynamic content. Oh wait if you’re going to do that then you may as well just run mongrel. But still the ease of installation is a winner for small sites.
-R

]]>