Mailing List Archive: Cherokee: users

cherokee + phusion passenger + ruby enterprise

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

bass at gentoo

Sep 30, 2009, 4:48 AM

Post #1 of 9 (672 views)
Permalink

cherokee + phusion passenger + ruby enterprise

Any plans to integrate REE & phusion passenger in cherokee?
nginx already do it, ruby web apps get aroun 30% more of througput adn
less memory use when run on passenger over REE (both are opensource
projects).
Nginx is gettign a lot of users thanks to that.

regards

_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

stefan at konink

Sep 30, 2009, 4:55 AM

Post #2 of 9 (634 views)
Permalink

Re: cherokee + phusion passenger + ruby enterprise [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

JoseAlberto schreef:
> Any plans to integrate REE & phusion passenger in cherokee?
> nginx already do it, ruby web apps get aroun 30% more of througput adn
> less memory use when run on passenger over REE (both are opensource
> projects).
> Nginx is gettign a lot of users thanks to that.

My hunch or high performance webapps; Ruby should not even come into the
picture. But that aside, reading the documentation:

"Passenger cannot use the mod_php way because it would force us to spawn
a new Rails application for each request, which is — as explained
earlier — unacceptably slow. Instead, Passenger uses the PHP-FastCGI
approach. We maintain a pool of application instances, and whenever a
request is received, we forward the request to one of the application
instances in the pool. The size of the pool is configurable, which is
useful for administrators of servers that are either heavily loaded or
have little memory."

If anyone is interested in Phusion, why not make Phusion fastcgi compatible?

Stefan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEAREKAAYFAkrDRxQACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1fsACbBShr9Opqs7kez+AmDwm/n1p3
BBEAn2IZYxfBZrK7rhRs0EX5Z2Rum5ZG
=B/gD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

roberto at unbit

Sep 30, 2009, 5:29 AM

Post #3 of 9 (640 views)
Permalink

Re: cherokee + phusion passenger + ruby enterprise [In reply to]

On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 13:55 +0200, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> JoseAlberto schreef:
> > Any plans to integrate REE & phusion passenger in cherokee?
> > nginx already do it, ruby web apps get aroun 30% more of througput adn
> > less memory use when run on passenger over REE (both are opensource
> > projects).
> > Nginx is gettign a lot of users thanks to that.
>
> My hunch or high performance webapps; Ruby should not even come into the
> picture. But that aside, reading the documentation:
>
> "Passenger cannot use the mod_php way because it would force us to spawn
> a new Rails application for each request, which is — as explained
> earlier — unacceptably slow. Instead, Passenger uses the PHP-FastCGI
> approach. We maintain a pool of application instances, and whenever a
> request is received, we forward the request to one of the application
> instances in the pool. The size of the pool is configurable, which is
> useful for administrators of servers that are either heavily loaded or
> have little memory."
>
> If anyone is interested in Phusion, why not make Phusion fastcgi compatible?
>

Phusion is a complete stack built to hide the apache internals to the
lazy programmer/sysadmin

Behind all the auto-configuration stuff there is a simple communication
protocol (similar to SCGI) and a rack handler (in the latest version)

rack is the ruby equivalent of wsgi and there are a lot of rack-handler
to communicate with standard protocol (FastGCI, SCGI...), so i think
there is no need to pollute the webserver with a complex handler that
does all the automagic things.

Use Rack with a communication (fastcgi, scgi and even uwsgi) protocol
and you can use all the ruby frameworks, now and pritcally all modern
version of cherokee.

Phusion Passenger is surely a great product but i do not think that
adding that sort of heavy-layer its a good design choice.

--
Roberto De Ioris
http://unbit.it
JID: roberto [at] jabber

_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

bass at gentoo

Sep 30, 2009, 5:51 AM

Post #4 of 9 (636 views)
Permalink

Re: cherokee + phusion passenger + ruby enterprise [In reply to]

El mié, 30-09-2009 a las 14:29 +0200, Roberto De Ioris escribió:

> Phusion is a complete stack built to hide the apache internals to the
> lazy programmer/sysadmin
>
> Behind all the auto-configuration stuff there is a simple communication
> protocol (similar to SCGI) and a rack handler (in the latest version)
>
> rack is the ruby equivalent of wsgi and there are a lot of rack-handler
> to communicate with standard protocol (FastGCI, SCGI...), so i think
> there is no need to pollute the webserver with a complex handler that
> does all the automagic things.
>
> Use Rack with a communication (fastcgi, scgi and even uwsgi) protocol
> and you can use all the ruby frameworks, now and pritcally all modern
> version of cherokee.
>
> Phusion Passenger is surely a great product but i do not think that
> adding that sort of heavy-layer its a good design choice.

twitter gains 30% of througput (without refactoring) using REE (1) but
the really great about passenger is how easy is to use, configure once
and use in 3each app, i dont need to worryed about what raisl version
need the app, just confiugre passenger, and put the app in thepassenger
dirs, restar the server and the apps works like charm.

Actually the cherokee wizard for rails only support rails (ther out is a
lot of other ruby framworks very popular like sinatra, camp, or plain
ruby) and some times is tricky to make it works correctly (when failsl
you dont know if it is an ruby error, or cherokee, or fcgi, etc). Of
coure other of the great features is the rack integration.

If you dont want to integrate passenger just mimic it, but it will be
really tricky to fight with different rails versions, different merb
versions, different sinatra versions, etc

My company is working with a rail app, and after some test nginx
+passenger+ree (all is installed and configured easily with a phusion
isntaller) have more points than cheroke. But i really prefer cherokee!
I really will love to see cherokee to mimic the passenger behaviour.

1. http://blog.evanweaver.com/articles/2009/09/24/ree/

_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

roberto at unbit

Sep 30, 2009, 6:24 AM

Post #5 of 9 (626 views)
Permalink

Re: cherokee + phusion passenger + ruby enterprise [In reply to]

>
> twitter gains 30% of througput (without refactoring) using REE (1) but
> the really great about passenger is how easy is to use, configure once
> and use in 3each app, i dont need to worryed about what raisl version
> need the app, just confiugre passenger, and put the app in thepassenger
> dirs, restar the server and the apps works like charm.

Yes, but this is thanks to REE not passenger.

>
> Actually the cherokee wizard for rails only support rails (ther out is a
> lot of other ruby framworks very popular like sinatra, camp, or plain
> ruby) and some times is tricky to make it works correctly (when failsl
> you dont know if it is an ruby error, or cherokee, or fcgi, etc). Of
> coure other of the great features is the rack integration.

rack supports all of this framework, (yes, for some of them, only the
latest release are rack-compliant), if we want to support automagic
configuration we should integrate it in cherokee (for all handlers) not
only for the ruby-environment.

>
> My company is working with a rail app, and after some test nginx
> +passenger+ree (all is installed and configured easily with a phusion
> isntaller) have more points than cheroke. But i really prefer cherokee!
> I really will love to see cherokee to mimic the passenger behaviour.
>
> 1. http://blog.evanweaver.com/articles/2009/09/24/ree/

My company, works with rails from years, we have been the first italian
provider to offer rails-ready hosting before 2006, we have developed
tons of deploy systems, we have used passengers, mongrels, pure-fastcgi
and now uwsgi+rack and the results are always the same:

deploy is not a real problem, rails/ruby is a resource-devourer
environment (i am not talking about REE obviously) and this is the only
REAL problem.

I am not against Passenger inclusion (i can even work on its integration
in cherokee as my company has dismembered i during the year), i am
against overcomplex-handler for webservers.

--
Roberto De Ioris
http://unbit.it
JID: roberto [at] jabber

_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

bass at gentoo

Sep 30, 2009, 6:41 AM

Post #6 of 9 (631 views)
Permalink

Re: cherokee + phusion passenger + ruby enterprise [In reply to]

El mié, 30-09-2009 a las 15:24 +0200, Roberto De Ioris escribió:
> >
> > twitter gains 30% of througput (without refactoring) using REE (1) but
> > the really great about passenger is how easy is to use, configure once
> > and use in 3each app, i dont need to worryed about what raisl version
> > need the app, just confiugre passenger, and put the app in thepassenger
> > dirs, restar the server and the apps works like charm.
>
>
> Yes, but this is thanks to REE not passenger.

from the web:
"Allows your Ruby on Rails applications to use 33% less memory on
average, when used in combination with Phusion Passenger."

Is not only about the performance, is about how easy is to deploy apps
with passenger (downst matter raisl version or ruby framwork).

> rack supports all of this framework, (yes, for some of them, only the
> latest release are rack-compliant), if we want to support automagic
> configuration we should integrate it in cherokee (for all handlers) not
> only for the ruby-environment.

but i see that more complex to do and mantain than just integrate
passenger.

> My company, works with rails from years, we have been the first italian
> provider to offer rails-ready hosting before 2006, we have developed
> tons of deploy systems, we have used passengers, mongrels, pure-fastcgi
> and now uwsgi+rack and the results are always the same:
>
> deploy is not a real problem, rails/ruby is a resource-devourer
> environment (i am not talking about REE obviously) and this is the only
> REAL problem.
>
> I am not against Passenger inclusion (i can even work on its integration
> in cherokee as my company has dismembered i during the year), i am
> against overcomplex-handler for webservers.

is not more complex to have a lot of little tricky wizards for each version of each ruby framework and ruby version??

_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

roberto at unbit

Sep 30, 2009, 6:49 AM

Post #7 of 9 (629 views)
Permalink

Re: cherokee + phusion passenger + ruby enterprise [In reply to]

On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 15:41
>
> from the web:
> "Allows your Ruby on Rails applications to use 33% less memory on
> average, when used in combination with Phusion Passenger."
>
> Is not only about the performance, is about how easy is to deploy apps
> with passenger (downst matter raisl version or ruby framwork).

Sorry, you are right, i am seeing only the performance value, but the
easy-of-use must not be the first thing to look at, in a
need-to-be-rocksolid environment as a webserver. And from my experience
more code you add to an application more bug she will have :)

>
> but i see that more complex to do and mantain than just integrate
> passenger.

look at the passenger code, is big. Really big. And most of the code is
for supporting old rails-release.

>
> is not more complex to have a lot of little tricky wizards for each version of each ruby framework and ruby version??
>

This is a flaw on the frameworks that are not rack compliant, trying to
supports all of them is surely the most important point to implement a
passenger handler.

If you think that this could improve the cherokee popularity, i will
look at it, even if i think that in about a year this will became
useless ;) (if rack grows as wsgi there will be no more need of a
passenger-like approach)

--
Roberto De Ioris
http://unbit.it
JID: roberto [at] jabber

_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

gwolf at gwolf

Sep 30, 2009, 11:58 AM

Post #8 of 9 (630 views)
Permalink

Re: cherokee + phusion passenger + ruby enterprise [In reply to]

JoseAlberto dijo [Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 02:51:30PM +0200]:
> twitter gains 30% of througput (without refactoring) using REE (1) but
> the really great about passenger is how easy is to use, configure once
> and use in 3each app, i dont need to worryed about what raisl version
> need the app, just confiugre passenger, and put the app in thepassenger
> dirs, restar the server and the apps works like charm.

Actually, the only real feature gain that Passenger would bring is the
seamless application restarts — Given all the performance gain comes
from the (completely non-free) REE, you would be better off using
Mongrel. Mongrel has also a very lightweight configuration, and is
built to get out of your way. The only thing I need to configure is to
drop off a YAML configuration and to set the webserver to forward a
virtual host to its TCP port:

$ cat /etc/mongrel-cluster/sites-available/mysite.mx.conf
---
cwd: /home/webapps/mysite.mx/
log_file: log/mongrel.log
port: "8001"
environment: production
address: 127.0.0.1
pid_file: /var/run/mongrel-cluster/mongrel.pid
servers: 1

The cool thing here is that each Mongrel process can be set to run
with a different user ID.

Via the Rails configuration wizard in cherokee-admin you can basically
achieve the same thing. Of course, tweakability comes at a price: At
the price of knowledge. Once your applications go live and you have to
start worrying about details related to scalability and low downtime
for upgrades, you'd much rather not leave yourself in the wizard's
hands. You will learn what each entry means.

--
Gunnar Wolf • gwolf [at] gwolf • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
Cherokee [at] lists
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

dririan at gmail

Sep 30, 2009, 5:38 PM

Post #9 of 9 (620 views)
Permalink

Re: cherokee + phusion passenger + ruby enterprise [In reply to]

Not that I am an advocate of REE, but how is it non-free? The only way it
could be considered remotely non-free is that the license of two files
(which even according the the LEGAL file itself are rarely used, so can be
deleted on 99% of platforms) is a BSD-style license that could be
interpreted to mean that it prohibits collecting a fee, but only for the
file in question, not REE itself.
PS: I use Mongrel myself, but I also believe that people should have the
choice of using what they desire. With that being said, Passenger is an
Apache module, and I believe it should stay that way. :)

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Gunnar Wolf <gwolf [at] gwolf> wrote:
>
> Actually, the only real feature gain that Passenger would bring is the
> seamless application restarts — Given all the performance gain comes
> from the (completely non-free) REE, you would be better off using
> Mongrel.

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads