Comments on: Just what web server should be sitting in front of my Rails application? http://joyeur.com/2007/07/16/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/ Joyent's Weblog Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:03:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Jauder Ho http://joyeur.com/2007/07/16/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2383 Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:46:39 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2383 Jason,

Do you have a good/basic varnish config file that you can share? I think I have the basics working but it’s throwing hate on anything that has a session. Goal would be to cache some partials.

Here’s what I have so far.
http://tumblelog.jauderho.com/post/29450943

]]> By: meekish http://joyeur.com/2007/07/16/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2377 Sat, 28 Jul 2007 02:21:45 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2377 What about for a very low traffic intranet app? Would Varnish be appropriate to cache and speed up the slow requests, or would you consider it too heavy-handed for such a light usage scenario?

If it would be useful, how would the architecture change?

Varnish -> NGINX -> Mongrel ?

If I’m understanding correctly, Varnish runs on 80, if a cache misses, it reverse proxies back to NGINX. If the request was static, NGINX serves it up, if the request was dynamic, NGINX passes it back to Mongrel? Is that even close?

]]> By: Jason A. Hoffman http://joyeur.com/2007/07/16/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2380 Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:15:21 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2380 @ Ezra

It’s about a truly comparative dataset and putting actual numbers on things, and yes I know mongrel is at 1.0.1 and nginx is at 0.6, and while they are better, I wouldn’t call the performance “vastly” improved. Meaning they aren’t a log better right?

]]> By: Joe Van Dyk http://joyeur.com/2007/07/16/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2381 Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:34:34 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2381 So using varnish allows you to do caching with a BigIP without having the mongrels be involved in serving the cached files?

A mongrel can serve about 600-700 static files per second I’ve found. It’s fast enough for me. Considering I have 30 of them running. :D

]]> By: Chris Williams http://joyeur.com/2007/07/16/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2382 Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:32:15 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2382 Any statistics of using Pound in front of a Mongrel cluster?

]]> By: Filip Hajny http://joyeur.com/2007/07/16/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2379 Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:12:07 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2379 As Jason mentioned, this is a sum up from tests he performed in April 2006.

]]> By: Ezra http://joyeur.com/2007/07/16/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2378 Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:31:10 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/just-what-web-server-should-be-sitting-in-front-of-my-rails-application/#comment-2378 Why are you testing ancient versions of both mongrel and nginx? Mongrel is at 1.0.1 now and has made a lot improvements since 0.3.12. And nginx is at 0.6.x. and has improved vastly since 0.3.37. Any reason to use such ancient versions in these benchmarks?

]]>