4 Comments
- primecut17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't be surprised if more rails devs jump on the litespeed bandwagon. I've heard a lot of good things about litespeed from inside the ruby community, but have not actually tried it myself. Guess today is as good as any to see if they are for real.
- joenoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is definitely a winner. Easily the most streamlined way to run rails apps available. Requires much less monitoring as well . Monitor litespeed, thats it -- litespeed monitors all the lsapi processes. Compared to monitoring each port you are proxying to, plus the webserver... that number could easily get huge. Suprised more people havent figured it out.
- nuance9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Checking it out. Right now I'm using both:
Apache2 -> mod_proxy_balancer -> mongrel / mongrel_cluster
and
Apaceh1.3 -> Pen -> mongrel / mongrel_cluster
This does sound interesting though. And according to the documentation, faster. - mysqljunkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Been using litespeed's server for quite a while now and they are pumping more and more features tailored to the ruby world which is awesome. My favorite part is the with their optimized ruby interface, ruby lsapi, I'm able to get rid all the extra layers, mongrel/proxy/balancer, and go straight with litespeed -> rail app and just let litespeed take care of the concurrency/loadbalancing work. Less parts equal faster and less things that can break which is always a good thing for me.


What is Digg?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the