[Radiant] Mongrel Cluster vs. Apache-FCGI

[Sean Cribbs]

IIRC, ruby-lang.org runs Apache 2.0.x with mod_fcgid, quite happily on a 
pretty vanilla box.  In the past, I've had memory-leak and 
zombie-process issues with FCGI (both lighttpd and Apache).  Your 
experience may vary.  I currently prefer proxy/balancing/Mongrel, but I 
also like Litespeed for its ease of use and nice admin interface.  LSAPI 
performs very well in comparison to FCGI.

Sean

John W. Long wrote:
> Ruben D. Orduz wrote:
>   
>> I recently got my rails app to serve with a mongrel cluster with a
>> balancer in front of it and Apache Proxying in front of that. That app
>> used to run on rails-Apache-FCGI straight and I really can't tell the
>> difference performance-wise. Granted, the point of a cluster and
>> balancer is for heavy loads not just one request, but there's a bit
>> diminishing returns going on with low traffic websites (< 5K page
>> views/week). Has any of you done any actual performance analysis on
>> rails-mongrel cluster vs rails-apache-fcgi? Just curious.
>>     
>
> I'm not aware of any official performance testing for a rails-mongrel 
> cluster vs rails-apache-fcgi.
>
> --
> John Long
> http://wiseheartdesign.com
> _______________________________________________
> Radiant mailing list
> Post:   Radiant at lists.radiantcms.org
> Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/
> Site:   http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.radiantcms.org/pipermail/radiant/attachments/20070409/436443ac/attachment.html