3 ms·

I love Miguel et al. but I tried for a long time to make a public ASP.Net (MVC2) site work. It would run fine for a few days but inevitably would become unstab

I love Miguel et al. but I tried for a long time to make a public ASP.Net (MVC2) site work. It would run fine for a few days but inevitably would become unstable where the Mono Apache process would runaway and put the CPU beyond 100% usage (how is that even possible?). After a year of doing weekly restarts I couldn't take it anymore and moved back to Windows. The extra $30 / month in Windows licensing on Racksapce more than paid for itself in the IT headaches (and expenses) it saved. Things may have since changed - this was back in v2.12 days - and / or other stacks (like service stack) may be more stable, but it's just easier for me to stick with Windows. With all this said, however, I have had fun trying the MonoTouch toolkit demos. I hope to find some time to build a real iOS app (one that works with the aforementioned website, in fact). Fingers crossed things will work out better this time for me and Mono.

mythz 14y ago
You're going to always have a better experience from Web Frameworks that officially support and have tested their stuff on Mono. We've added special normalizing support to match the behaviour of IIS/ASP.NET where we can, e.g. imitate redirects + case-insensitive file paths, etc. This reduces the differences when porting your ASP.NET app across to run on Linux. Now that it's open source and MVC is accepting patches, MVC3 might be more stable on Mono.
- itsboring 14y ago
  I think the problem here specifically is mod-mono and the fastcgi server (basically the xsp-derived glue). I've seen a number of people complain about memory leaks and instability and having to restart apache. It's not readily reproducible but it's enough to make people too nervous to deploy. Those sub-projects appear to be unmaintained and queries about their status on the mailing list go unanswered. Without some solid info there, it unfortunately makes the open source MVC stuff rather moot. I concluded (perhaps wrongly?) that web wasn't a priority for mono and chose another technology for that part. On the other hand, mono makes a great socket server stack, and I still use it extensively there.

mythz 14y ago

You're going to always have a better experience from Web Frameworks that officially support and have tested their stuff on Mono. We've added special normalizing support to match the behaviour of IIS/ASP.NET where we can, e.g. imitate redirects + case-insensitive file paths, etc. This reduces the differences when porting your ASP.NET app across to run on Linux. Now that it's open source and MVC is accepting patches, MVC3 might be more stable on Mono.

itsboring 14y ago
I think the problem here specifically is mod-mono and the fastcgi server (basically the xsp-derived glue). I've seen a number of people complain about memory leaks and instability and having to restart apache. It's not readily reproducible but it's enough to make people too nervous to deploy. Those sub-projects appear to be unmaintained and queries about their status on the mailing list go unanswered. Without some solid info there, it unfortunately makes the open source MVC stuff rather moot. I concluded (perhaps wrongly?) that web wasn't a priority for mono and chose another technology for that part. On the other hand, mono makes a great socket server stack, and I still use it extensively there.