From: Shaun Lloyd <list@...>
Date: 2012-05-23T23:46:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby through CGI and Rails

  On 23/05/12 19:36, Brian Candler wrote:
> Shaun Lloyd wrote in post #1061602:
>> On 22/05/12 03:37, Brian Candler wrote:
>>>> understand the security implications of having your own process!
>>> The cost of starting a Rails app is huge - several seconds of startup
>>> time. You really really don't want to do this from scratch on every
>>> request.
>>>
>> It's a real huge. I did tests locally, cross country and cross
>> continent.
>> I love ruby and rails but honest ruby on rails has very serious
>> performance issues.
> That just means you're using it wrong. Rails was *never* intended to be
> run as a CGI, it's just a ridiculuous thing to do. Run Rails as a
> persistent webserver and proxy to it; or run it under Apache using
> Phusion Passenger, which will also run any other Rack-based application.
>
I installed rails through cpanel installer.
It is running on individual port standard production installation!

I was comparing python-cgi / perl-cgi / ruby-cgi / rails_app

In my work over the last couple of days i have found phusion passenger 
and have
found performance increase with that setup. But it sort of a mute point 
from my
perspective.

I'm not trying to use rails i was trying to understand how to use ruby 
without it!

But having said that i've used a heap of frameworks of the years, it's 
very very good!

> You might get away with running a smaller framework like Sinatra as a
> CGI, but it will still have a poor response time. Remember that if you
> are using a database, it will need to make a fresh connection to the
> database for every request too
Got on to RACK thanks.
> Anyway, this is the wrong mailing list for discussing Rails. Rails is
> not Ruby, and this is the Ruby mailing list.
>

Sorta my reason for posting hear in the first place. I wanted more 
information on
using "ruby" in web architecture and all i could find out about was rails.

> Regards,
>
> Brian.
>
Cheers