I have an application running on my development machine using Aptana & Webrick.
If I turn on caching (action_caching, written to tmp/cache), it works fine, but when I deploy the application to the testserver (running thin instead of webrick) the caching does not work...i.e. there are no files written to tmp/cache.
as far as I can tell, the webserver is the only difference here (even running the development-environment on the test server.
any clues?
Okay, so I found the problem: I was running thin as a windows service, which didn't shut down or restart properly when trying to do so in "Services".
Unfortunately without notice. Therefore no changes took effect..
So after restarting the server, the caching-problem dissappeared. running thin now from the command line...
Related
I'm running my Rails application through thin on Windows OS.
thin start -e production
Since the number of users grew, now around 10 people using the app simultaneously, there are times when a same page takes a while longer to load.
Are there other configurations that I need to set when running the server on production?
I'm quite sure that it has to do with the server since the slow down happens on pages that normally loads fast.
The Thin webserver is not meant to production environment. Instead of this you should use a different webserver and application server like Nginx/Unicorn, Nginx/Passenger.
I would recommend Passenger to run your rails app as fast as possible in production mode.
The thin webserver is very fast for few requests, but if there are simultaneously requests, thin gets very slow.
The following document describes about how to deploy rails application in windows. I haven't done this personally but, believe the latest versions should allow that. Please check the below link to see how it can be done
http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2006/5/11/deploying-rails-on-windows-servers/
Is it possible to hot deploy Ruby just like PHP?
Normally I used FTP to upload the PHP file, then it will be available automatically.
Can Ruby hot deploy its file like this?
Your comment welcome.
Are you talking about a ruby on rails application ?
If so, when deploying a rails application in production mode, the all application gets loaded in memory. So changing the files won't affect the running application.
For hot restarting a rails application you will need to use solution such as:
Unicorn
Puma
Passenger
For a first time, Puma is the easiest way.
However if you are looking for a zero-downtime, either Unicorn or Passenger enterprise are what you are looking for.
EDIT
Unicorn
Free
Complex configuration
zero-downtime when hot restarting. when hot-restarting unicorn, it keeps the old threads working until the new ones are fully functionnal. So if the new ones fail to start, nothing happens. The old ones just keep going.
Puma
Free
Simple configuration
hot restart but no zero-downtime. When hot-restarting puma, it shuts down the old threads and starts the new ones. Puma keeps the sockets open, so the client are not disconnected, but are waiting to get a response while the new threads restart. However if the new threads fail to start, Puma can't restart the old ones. So connections are lost and the server is down.
Passenger
Free edition
Free
The configuration is easier than unicorn
hot-restart, but no zero-downtime. Like Puma.
Enterprise edition
$29/mo
The configuration is easier than unicorn
zero-downtime when hot restarting. Like Unicorn.
I am new to Ruby on Rails, but I managed to install it using the RailsInstaller and I am using Aptana Studio 3 as a text editor. I am on a Windows 7 x64.
Last week I managed to create a simple Hello world project, and it worked as it should when starting and stopping the rails server. To start the server I used the command rails server and to stop it I used CTRL+C.
Somehow, this week, when I'm trying to start the server it says "A server is already running". But, when I go to the correct page in a web browser it doesn't work. I get the error "Google Chrome could not connect to localhost:3010". So, this makes it seem like the server is not working, even though it supposedly is running.
So, I then try to stop the server from running, but CTRL+C doesn't seem to do anything. It doesn't give any kind of message at all when I input that, it just skips to a new line in the terminal window.
the standard port is 3000.
You can kill the server in the task manager and start it from new..
There is probably a rails process still running but bugged out/crashed. Try looking at the processes in the windows task manager to for a rails process, and cancel it. Additionally you can start a rails process on a different port with rails server -p PORT
I'm running a Rails application on a Mac Mini server machine (with Webrick, running ruby 1.9.2 using rvm). It works fine when I run it locally on my MacBook, and it was working before I reinstalled rvm, but now whenever I try to access it from a browser on my local machine, it simply hangs and doesn't respond.
If I do a curl http://0.0.0.0:3000 on my server, though, I get the webpage back fine.
I created a fresh Rails app just to double-check it wasn't a problem with my app, and I get the same problem. I also get the problem with Mongrel, and if I try running a bare Sinatra app with Thin.
It sounds like the same problem documented here: Webrick is very slow to respond. How to speed it up?, but I tried modifying my config.rb file to use :DoNotReverseLookup => true, and it didn't help.
Any ideas?
I don't think the issue is related to Rails or your dispatcher. It looks like the OS firewall is blocking ingoing requests to port 3000. Did you try to allow all ingoing connections from your System Preferences ?
When I try to run InstantRails 2.0 under Vista, which I've extracted to C:\InstantRails, I get the following error:
Either Apache or MySQL cannot run because another program is using its port.
What do I do here? MySQL server is installed fine.
InstantRails will tell you in its console exactly which one can't run with its traffic lights. It's most likely a clash between Apache and Vista's built in web server (IIS) on port 80. I'd go open up the Services list and turn IIS (may be called 'HTTP Web server' or something similar) off.
And, to be honest, as useful as InstantRails was, it's not actively maintained. Bitnami's RubyStack is a fair substitute although it's larger, takes longer to install, and doesn't have the nice pointy-clicky interface for starting mongrel instances that InstantRails (RIP) did.