I know that Lighty is fast, small and serves static content well, but
is Mongrel any worse?
Can someone please justify having an extra element in the chain?
On 2/4/07, sserdyuk [email protected] wrote:
I know that Lighty is fast, small and serves static content well, but
is Mongrel any worse?
Can someone please justify having an extra element in the chain?
Mongrel is much worse than lighty for static content.
–
Rick O.
http://weblog.techno-weenie.net
http://mephistoblog.com
Mongrel was around 4-10x slower for the tests I did for static
content. I think I posted those to this list before.
Later,
Vish
sserdyuk wrote:
I know that Lighty is fast, small and serves static content well, but
is Mongrel any worse?
Can someone please justify having an extra element in the chain?
When it’s possible, try to server static content (a la “public/”) with
something else. Nginx, Lighttpd, and Apache can do this for you. If
you’re not serving too much, you can probably get away with Mongrel
doing it… but it’s less than ideal.
Robby
–
Robby R.
http://www.robbyonrails.com/
This guys are reporting 4K requests per second (48 Mongrels) Looks
like their next iteration will be tunning for static assets. it will
be interesting to the see the difference in this scale.
A brief update with some numbers for hardware load-balanced mongrels
http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels
Thank you for your answers, gentlemen.