5 ms·
Mongrel was effectively so much better than using FastCGI and it served well for a time. Now passenger is a step in the right direction, easier to setup and mon
by jfno67 17y ago
Mongrel was effectively so much better than using FastCGI and it served well for a time. Now passenger is a step in the right direction, easier to setup and monitor.
We had some memory consumption problems also when we decided to migrate and just switching to passenger did little for those. It was really the switch to REE that made the difference. Also the memory was not really from complex database operation, it was for rendering huge erb templates for the Googlebots. In the end there were no reason to always generate those templates and caching solved the problem definitively, but with REE it was already acceptable and we could have let it be for some months too.
- mishmash 17y agoI haven't personally switched away from Mongrel yet, but the community seems to agree with you and Passenger/REE probably are the "future" (er, current?) best deployment method - which is fine by me. What bothers me, though, is how for some at least, Mongrel must be completely vilified before Passenger is able to become the next in a long line of Ruby deployments progressions. Idk, I just don't understand the need for those type of motivations.
- carbon8 17y agoOr, perhaps, rather than some grand plan to vilify mongrel in order to pave the way for passenger, people are simply expressing their views and opinions.
- mishmash 17y agoYeah you may be right, but these almost "religious" deployment transition seem familiar to me, remembering... FastCGI -> LigHTTP (+others) -> Mongrel -> Passenger, and it seems like we've had a crucifixion at each stage of development. But idk and it's late.
- goodgoblin 17y agoI think at each stage the vitriol has decreased as a function of the maturity of the solutions. FastCGI was desperately bad.