I've successfully deployed my Rails application to Digital Ocean by configuring a git post-receive hook and running my puma server through screen (screen rails server).
It seems to be working and accessible at http://178.128.12.158:3000/
Do I still need to implement nginx? My purpose is only serving my API and a CMS website at the same domain.
And about deployment packages like capistrano/mina? Why should I care about them if git hook is serving me well?
Thank you in advance
If you're going to manage large number of traffic with load balancing mode nginx will help. We can add some constraint like block some sent of IP access, etc...
For more refer the following link: https://www.nginx.com/resources/glossary/application-server-vs-web-server/
If you want static resources to be served by a web server, which is often faster, you'll want to front-end your rails app with something like nginx. Nginx will offer a lot more flexibility for tuning how you serve your app.
Capistrano is for deployments, and again, is more flexible than the basic hook approach. For instance, if you intend to have different hosts (for db, web, assets, etc.), or multiples of them, then Cap is your friend.
I'm able to run rails s through ssh successfully and see the app start up just as it does on my own machine but I'm unable to access the app from the web. The app is directly under the home folder and I have a symbolic link pointing from public_html to the public folder of my rails app, just as this tutorial explains. I even tried setting up a subdomain and every other step in the tutorial to no avail. Any help would be highly appreciated.
You need an application server like Phusion Passenger, Unicorn or puma to run a Ruby app in a production environment. Typically, you'll integrate the application server into a web server's (Apache, nginx) environment.
I don't know about your hoster, but if you have root access, then you can probably use any of these application servers.
The built-in server you start by running rails server is only meant for testing purposes on your local machine. It has not been made with security, performance, stability or any other production-environment criteria in mind.
My head is about to explode from the mangled mess as a result of the following few days trying to setup a development environment for Rails, Apache and Passenger.
The questions I have are:
Do you NEED passenger for a development environment? Can I just develop with pow.cx instead? - I am 99.99% sure the answer is no (you don't use passenger for development), but I need confirmation since I am deeply confused now.
When I deploy, I only use Passenger for that, correct? I.e. I don't ever touch passenger until I deploy.
Is my development environment correct?
Production deployment is simply moving a rails application under the effects of Passenger coupled with an Apache VHOST?
Background (I suggest you read):
It seems that all the information on the web is concerned about explaining things for people who already know what they are doing, rather than explaining in detail how things work it's just a series of installation steps and that has left me extremely confused on the role of things, and how to setup a development environment and deploy a RoR application correctly - so please bear with this long question.
For the past 3 days I have been trying to setup a development environment on my Macbook Pro that isn't destroyed by Apple's rediculous limits on Apache installations. I installed a custom Apache install (from bitnami using their ruby stack, since I refuse to use Server.app) so that I can run Apache and upgrade things like PHP to 5.5 easily, and that works fine.
I am trying to get into RoR but so far it has been a struggle, and I am about ready to give up.
I understand you need Apache to serve Rails applications so that the server can handle requests concurrently rather than one at a time, and that various interfaces for this exist like Thin or whatever; Passenger was highly recommended.
I installed Passenger via their instructions and did some hackery to compile it for the Bitnami passenger installation, rather than the default Apache on Mac OS X - and it's working. When I start apache and run: passenger-memory-stats I get results expected from the installation guide, so that tells me passenger is running.
However, when I try and deploy a simple hello world Rails application I get a slew of "We're sorry…" or no result at all and just a blank page.
I am fairly sure my development environment is correct, everything works except this last bit. I can picture development taking place on a pow.cx server, and once deployment is ready you simply copy the Rails application and configure Apache's VHOST to point to your ready-to-deploy app while Passenger handles the rest, is that correct?
I am using PostgresSQL via the Postgress.app, the server works fine and I can connect to it.
I have gem 'pg' in my Gemfile.
I have already read, and tried every conceivable solution from the following SO questions, but I either get no result or empty logs which is… infuriating to say the least:
We're sorry, but something went wrong. - with Rails, Apache, Passenger
Ruby on Rails: How can i edit database.yml for postgresql?
How do I set up the database.yml file in Rails?
https://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/187128
So with all that said, I am trying to deploy this hello world application (which works on a standard rails server) using the following:
INVOKING APPLICATION VIA:
http://dmarket.local:8081/
VHOSTS:
<VirtualHost *:8081>
PassengerEnabled on
RailsEnv production
ErrorLog /Applications/rubystack/apache2/htdocs/helloworld/project_error.log
CustomLog /Applications/rubystack/apache2/htdocs/helloworld/project_error.log combined
ServerName dmarket.local:8081
ServerAlias www.dmarket.local:8081
DocumentRoot "/Applications/rubystack/apache2/htdocs/helloworld/public"
PassengerPreStart http://dmarket.local:8081
<Directory "/Applications/rubystack/apache2/htdocs/helloworld/public">
Allow from all
Options -MultiViews
</Directory>
</VirtualHost>
HOSTS FILE:
127.0.0.1 dmarket.local
127.0.0.1 www.dmarket.local
DATABASE.YML (same for development, test, and production):
adapter: postgresql
encoding: unicode
host: 127.0.0.1
port: 5432
database: tsujp
pool: 5
username: tsujp
password:
A summary of answers to your questions
You don't need Passenger in development. You can develop with Pow, and deploy with Passenger.
But you can use Passenger in development if you want to. It is a good idea to use Passenger in development because that way your development environment will match your production environment more, which reduces the risk of running into unexpected problems when you deploy.
Using Passenger in development is very easy. Use it's Standalone mode, and run passenger start instead of rails server.
Pow is strictly a development-only server. The authors recommend against using it in production.
When you deploy, you touch Passenger. You don't have to touch Passenger until deployment time, but you may.
Production deployment is indeed moving an application under the effects of Passenger, and setting up a virtual host. You will of course also need to install gems (bundle install) setup the database (editing config/database.yml), running database migrations (bundle exec rake db:migrate), etc.
I've also posted updates on the posts that you linked to, in order to make life easier for people who happened to have found those posts via search.
Apache vs Nginx
You will find a lot of people recommending Nginx (e.g. Sergio just did). I second that recommendation. Nginx is faster than Apache, handles slow clients better and is generally easier to use.
Passenger works great with Nginx. It has an Nginx integration mode that is just as easy as the Apache mode. Sergio suggested Nginx + Unicorn or Nginx + Puma, but Nginx + Passenger (which replaces Unicorn/Puma) is much easier to setup, performs great, uses less memory, works better and has more features. Nginx + Unicorn requires a lot of configuration, process management using init scripts, etc.
But this is just a recommendation. You don't have to use Nginx. Sticking with Apache + Passenger is fine. Apache works well enough for most people.
Regarding your Passenger problems
However, when I try and deploy a simple hello world Rails application I get a slew of "We're sorry…" or no result at all and just a blank page.
Whenever you get an unexpected error, the first thing you should do is to read the log files. There are two log files that are important to you:
The web server error log, typically /var/log/apache/error.log. This log file contains:
Phusion Passenger error messages.
Everything that the Rails application writes to STDERR. This typically consists of errors that Rails encounters during startup (but not errors that it encounters when it's handling requests).
The Rails development log (or production log, in case you're running in production), log/development.log (or log/production.log). When an error occurs during request handling, it is typically logged here. This file does not contain errors that Rails encounters during startup.
The error messages will often tell you what the problem is and how to solve it.
This tip can also be found in the Phusion Passenger manual, Troubleshooting section.
Capistrano
Sergio recommended Capistrano. I second that recommendation. You should remember that Capistrano complements Passenger; it does not replace Passenger. Capistrano is a tool for automating tasks. Do you currently create a tarball of your app and scp it to your server, and extract it there? Well, Capistrano automates this sort of thing for you.
For more information about how all the different pieces of the stack fit together (Apache, Passenger, Capistrano, HAProxy, Chef, etc), check out the section "The big picture" on the Phusion Passenger documentation page.
Recommendation summary
Use passenger start in development. It is by far the easiest to get started with. You don't have to edit any configuration files, it works immediately.
Use Phusion Passenger for Nginx in production.
You don't need Passenger in development. In fact, in development mode you don't need even apache. You can use built-in Webrick server ($ rails server) to run your app. And yes. Pow is a good tool, I use it all the time.
In production there are also multiple options. One of them is Apache+Passenger, yes. But you need to put Nginx in front of those (because Apache doesn't handle slow clients very well). If you have nginx, then you can replace apache+passenger with something else. For a long time I've been using Unicorn (ruby web server from github). Now my current favourite is Puma. It uses less resources than unicorn, but has more requirements to your code (it better be thread-safe, because puma is a threaded server).
Now, to the development-production discrepancy: it is known that development should resemble production as closely as possible, because it minimizes risks when deploying. So, my suggestion is: use unicorn everywhere (both development and production). Only on production put nginx in front of it.
Also,
for actually performing deploys, look into Capistrano. It became industry standard for deploying rails apps (but it can also deploy PHP, static files and what have you).
Do I need to install/config Node.js to get Javascript running?
Is this the simplest solution, seeing that my site has really low traffic?
Javascript doesn't seem to work for me but only in production for a site I am running. The site is setup on the latest version of Ubuntu Server, with Nginx and Passenger (it's a Ruby on Rails app). The site runs great and fast for the past few months, but Javascripts (in particular, things like Twitter Bootstrap's tooltip, etc.) don't run on this production server although they work in my testing/dev environments.
My thoughts are that Javascript is broken b/c I need to install/configure Node.js? I've seen Node.js mentioned in some deployment setup guides but can't find detailed info into if this is necessary.
My site is very low traffic (maybe 3-5 users at any time) for a small company website. The only reason I needed to setup my own web server is that I needed to run the app on the private company network to access certain resources.
By default your js/css don't compiled. You should precompile them.
You can run "bundle exec rake assets:precompile" on your computer and deploy compiled code to the server. Instead node.js you can use therubyracer gem.
For more information read rails guide
Considering migrating an app to Heroku. Currently we build & test locally before deploying to our own server for hosting...But the application is growing and now wondering if it's reasonable to have, say, 3 versions of our app. One local to developer's machines. A second (testing) deployed via Capistrano to an internal server. And then finally a third on Heroku (production). Databases would not need to be shared.
Any problems or advice for this sort of scenario?
I think it's a good thing to have a staging server with the same environment as your production. So instead of internal server, wouldn't it be better to test on heroku?
For this purpose I've created another app on heroku and before updating my production app, I push my app to the staging one.
I would highly recommend the heroku_san gem which simplifies pushing app to heroku to just rake staging deploy.
I do this. I have development on developer's machines, staging, and production.
Staging is our test sandbox and sometimes also shares user databases with production so I can let users beta test, etc.
Whether or not you use Heroku for production really doesn't matter does it?