As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
The whole issue of setting up a development server for my Ruby on Rails application confuses me. There are WEBrick, Mongrel, Passenger, Apache, Nginx and many more I am sure, and I don't really understand the different roles they play.
I started off using WEBrick, and now I use Mongrel for development. Are these servers stand-alone, or do they sit in front of Apache?
I have read about Passenger and I don't really understand what it is, the site says "makes deployment of Ruby web applications a breeze", does it replace Mongrel? Is it like Capistrano, which also deploys web applications?
Bearing in mind I would like to test SSL, and I believe that's not supported by mongrel, what is the best development server setup?
Thanks
The word "deployment" can have two meanings depending on the context. You are also confusing the roles of Apache/Nginx with the roles of other components.
Historic note: This article was originally written on November 6, 2010, when the Ruby app server ecosystem was limited. I've updated this article on March 15 2013 with all the latest updates in the ecosystem.
Disclaimer: I am one of the authors of Phusion Passenger, one of the app servers.
Apache vs Nginx
They're both web servers. They can serve static files but - with the right modules - can also serve dynamic web apps e.g. those written in PHP. Apache is more popular and has more features, Nginx is smaller and faster and has less features.
Neither Apache nor Nginx can serve Ruby web apps out-of-the-box, to do that you need to use Apache/Nginx in combination with some kind of add-on, described later.
Apache and Nginx can also act as reverse proxies, meaning that they can take an incoming HTTP request and forward it to another server, which also speaks HTTP. When that server responds with an HTTP response, Apache/Nginx will forward the response back to the client; You will learn later why this is relevant.
Mongrel and other production app servers vs WEBrick
Mongrel is a Ruby "application server": In concrete terms this means that Mongrel is an application which:
Loads your Ruby app inside its own process space.
Sets up a TCP socket, allowing it to communicate with the outside world (e.g. the Internet).
Mongrel listens for HTTP requests on this socket and passes the request data to the Ruby web app.
The Ruby web app then returns an object, which describes what the HTTP response should look like, and Mongrel takes care of converting it to an actual HTTP response (the actual bytes) and sends it back over the socket.
However Mongrel is quite dated, nowadays it is no longer maintained. Newer alternative application servers are:
Phusion Passenger
Unicorn
Thin
Puma
Trinidad (JRuby only)
TorqueBox (JRuby only)
I'll cover them later and describe how they differ from each other and from Mongrel.
WEBrick does the same thing as Mongrel, but the differences are:
WEBrick is not fit for production, unlike everything else that I mentioned before. WEBrick is written entirely in Ruby. Mongrel (and most other Ruby app servers) is part Ruby and part C (Mostly Ruby), but its HTTP parser is written in C for performance.
WEBrick is slower and less robust. It has some known memory leaks and some known HTTP parsing problems.
WEBrick is usually only used as the default server during development because WEBrick is included in Ruby by default. Mongrel and other app servers needs to be installed separately. It's not recommended to use WEBrick in production environments, though for some reason Heroku chose WEBrick as its default server. They were using Thin before, so I have no idea why they switched to WEBrick.
The app server and the world
All current Ruby app servers speak HTTP, however some app servers may be directly exposed to the Internet on port 80, while others may not.
App servers that can be directly exposed to the Internet: Phusion Passenger, Rainbows
App servers that may not be directly exposed to the Internet: Mongrel, Unicorn, Thin, Puma. These app servers must be put behind a reverse proxy web server like Apache and Nginx.
I don't know enough about Trinidad and TorqueBox, so I've omitted them.
Why must some app servers be put behind a reverse proxy?
Some app servers can only handle 1 request concurrently, per process. If you want to handle 2 requests concurrently you need to run multiple app server instances, each serving the same Ruby app. This set of app server processes is called an app server cluster (hence the name Mongrel Cluster, Thin Cluster, etc). You must then setup Apache or Nginx to reverse proxy to this cluster. Apache/Nginx will take care of distributing requests between the instances in the cluster (More on this in section "I/O concurrency models").
The web server can buffer requests and responses, protecting the app server from "slow clients" - HTTP clients that don't send or accept data very quickly. You don't want your app server to do nothing while waiting for the client to send the full request or to receive the full response, because during that time the app server may not be able to do anything else. Apache and Nginx are very good at doing many things at the same time because they're either multithreaded or evented.
Most app servers can serve static files, but are not particularly good at it. Apache and Nginx can do it faster.
People typically set up Apache/Nginx to serve static files directly, but forward requests that don't correspond with static files to the app server, it's good security practice. Apache and Nginx are very mature and can shield the app server from (perhaps maliciously) corrupted requests.
Why can some app servers be directly exposed to the Internet?
Phusion Passenger is a very different beast from all the other app servers. One of its unique features is that it integrates into the web server.
The Rainbows author publicly stated that it's safe to directly expose it to the Internet. The author is fairly sure that there are no vulnerabilities in the HTTP parser (and similar). Still, the author provides no warranty and says that usage is at own risk.
Application servers compared
In this section I'll compare most application servers I've mentioned, but not Phusion Passenger. Phusion Passenger is such a different beast from the rest that I've given it a dedicated section. I've also omitted Trinidad and TorqueBox because I do not know them well enough, but they're only relevant anyway if you use JRuby.
Mongrel was pretty bare bones. As mentioned earlier, Mongrel is purely single-threaded multi-process, so it is only useful in a cluster. There is no process monitoring: if a process in the cluster crashes (e.g. because of a bug in the app) then it needs to be manually restarted. People tend to use external process monitoring tools such as Monit and God.
Unicorn is a fork of Mongrel. It supports limited process monitoring: if a process crashes it is automatically restarted by the master process. It can make all processes listen on a single shared socket, instead of a separate socket for each process. This simplifies reverse proxy configuration. Like Mongrel, it is purely single-threaded multi-process.
Thin uses the evented I/O model by utilizing the EventMachine library. Other than using the Mongrel HTTP parser, it is not based on Mongrel in any way. Its cluster mode has no process monitoring so you need to monitor crashes etc. There is no Unicorn-like shared socket, so each process listens on its own socket. In theory, Thin's I/O model allows high concurrency, but in most practical situations that Thin is used for, one Thin process can only handle 1 concurrent request, so you still need a cluster. More about this peculiar property in section "I/O concurrency models".
Puma was also forked from Mongrel, but unlike Unicorn, Puma is designed to be purely multi-threaded. There is therefore currently no builtin cluster support. You need to take special care to ensure that you can utilize multiple cores (More about this in section "I/O concurrency models").
Rainbows supports multiple concurrency models through the use of different libraries.
Phusion Passenger
Phusion Passenger works very differently from all the other ones. Phusion Passenger integrates directly into Apache or Nginx, and so can be compared to mod_php for Apache. Just like mod_php allows Apache to serve PHP apps, almost magically, Phusion Passenger allows Apache (and also Nginx!) to serve Ruby apps, almost magically. Phusion Passenger's goal is to make everything Just Work(tm) with as little hassle as possible.
Instead of starting a process or cluster for your app, and configuring Apache/Nginx to serve static files and/or reverse proxying requests to the process/cluster with Phusion Passenger you only need to:
You edit the web server config file and specify the location of your Ruby app's 'public' directory.
There is no step 2.
All configuration is done within the web server config file. Phusion Passenger automates pretty much everything. There is no need to start a cluster and manage processes. Starting/stopping processes, restarting them when they crash, etc. - all automated. Compared to other app servers, Phusion Passenger has far fewer moving parts. This ease of use is one of the primary reasons why people use Phusion Passenger.
Also unlike other app servers, Phusion Passenger is primarily written in C++, making it very fast.
There's also an Enterprise variant of Phusion Passenger with even more features, such as automated rolling restarts, multithreading support, deployment error resistance, etc.
For the above reasons, Phusion Passenger is currently the most popular Ruby app server, powering over 150,000 websites, including large ones such as New York Times, Pixar, Airbnb, etc.
Phusion Passenger vs other app servers
Phusion Passenger provides a lot more features and provides many advantages over other app servers, such as:
Dynamically adjusting the number of processes based on traffic. We run a ton of Rails apps on our resource-constrainted server that are not public-facing, and that people in our organization only use at most a few times a day. Things like Gitlab, Redmine, etc. Phusion Passenger can spin down those processes when they're not used, and spinning them up when they're used, allowing more resources to be available for more important apps. With other app servers, all your processes are turned on all the time.
Some app servers are not good at certain workloads, by design. For example Unicorn is designed for fast-running requests only: See the Unicorn website section "Just Worse in Some Cases".
Workloads that Unicorn is not good at are:
Streaming workloads (e.g. Rails 4 live streaming or Rails 4 template streaming).
Workloads in which the app performs HTTP API calls.
The hybrid I/O model in Phusion Passenger Enterprise 4 or later makes it an excellent choice for these kinds of workloads.
Other app servers require the user to run at least one instance per application. By contrast, Phusion Passenger supports multiple applications in a single instance. This greatly reduces administration overhead.
Automatic user switching, a convenient security feature.
Phusion Passenger supports many MRI Ruby, JRuby and Rubinius. Mongrel, Unicorn and Thin only support MRI. Puma also supports all 3.
Phusion Passenger actually supports more than just Ruby! It also supports Python WSGI, so it can for example also run Django and Flask apps. In fact Phusion Passenger is moving into the direction of becoming a polyglot server. Node.js support on the todo list.
Out-of-band garbage collection. Phusion Passenger can run the Ruby garbage collector outside the normal request/response cycle, potentially reducing request times by hundreds of milliseconds. Unicorn also has a similar feature, but Phusion Passenger's version is more flexible because
1) it's not limited to GC and can be used for arbitrary work.
2) Phusion Passenger's version works well with multithreaded apps, while Unicorn's does not.
Automated rolling restarts. Rolling restarts on Unicorn and other servers require some scripting work. Phusion Passenger Enterprise completely automates this way for you.
There are more features and advantages, but the list is really long. You should refer to the comprehensive Phusion Passenger manual (Apache version, Nginx version) or the Phusion Passenger website for information.
I/O concurrency models
Single-threaded multi-process. This is traditionally the most popular I/O model for Ruby app servers, partially because multithreading support in the Ruby ecosystem was very bad. Each process can handle exactly 1 request at a time. The web server load balances between processes. This model is very robust and there is little chance for the programmer to introduce concurrency bugs. However, its I/O concurrency is extremely limited (limited by the number of processes). This model is very suitable for fast, short-running workloads. It is very unsuitable for slow, long-running blocking I/O workloads, e.g. workloads involving the calling of HTTP APIs.
Purely multi-threaded. Nowadays the Ruby ecosystem has excellent multithreading support, so this I/O model has become very viable. Multithreading allows high I/O concurrency, making it suitable for both short-running and long-running blocking I/O workloads. The programmer is more likely to introduce concurrency bugs, but luckily most web frameworks are designed in such a way that this is still very unlikely. One thing to note however is that the MRI Ruby interpreter cannot leverage multiple CPU cores even when there are multiple threads, due to the use of the Global Interpreter Lock (GIL). You can work around this by using multiple multi-threaded processes, because each process can leverage a CPU core. JRuby and Rubinius have no GIL, so they can fully leverage multiple cores in a single process.
Hybrid multi-threaded multi-process. Primarily implemented by Phusion Passenger Enterprise 4 and later. You can easily switch between single-threaded multi-process, purely multithreaded, or perhaps even multiple processes each with multiple threads. This model gives the best of both worlds.
Evented. This model is completely different from the previously mentioned model. It allows very high I/O concurrency and is therefore excellent for long-running blocking I/O workloads. To utilize it, explicit support from the application and the framework is required. However all the major frameworks like Rails and Sinatra do not support evented code. This is why in practice a Thin process still cannot handle more than 1 request at a time, making it effectively behave the same as the single-threaded multi-process model. There are specialized frameworks that can take advantage of evented I/O, such as Cramp.
An article was recently posted on the Phusion blog about optimally tuning the number of processes and threads given your workload. See Tuning Phusion Passenger's concurrency settings.
Capistrano
Capistrano is something completely different. In all the previous sections, "deployment" refers to the act of starting your Ruby app in an application server, so that it becomes accessible to visitors, but before that can happen one typically needs to do some preparation work, such as:
Uploading the Ruby app's code and files to the server machine.
Installing libraries that your app depends on.
Setting up or migrating the database.
Starting and stopping any daemons that your app might rely on, such as Sidekiq/Resque workers or whatever.
Any other things that need to be done when you're setting up your application.
In the context of Capistrano, "deployment" refers to doing all this preparation work. Capistrano is not an application server. Instead, it is a tool for automating all that preparation work. You tell Capistrano where your server is and which commands need to be run every time you deploy a new version of your app, and Capistrano will take care of uploading the Rails app to the server for you and running the commands you specified.
Capistrano is always used in combination with an application server. It does not replace application servers. Vice-versa, application servers do not replace Capistrano, they can be used in combination with Capistrano.
Of course you don't have to use Capistrano. If you prefer to upload your Ruby app with FTP and manually running the same steps of commands every time, then you can do that. Other people got tired of it, so they automate those steps in Capistrano.
Are there any easy-to-configure webserver with ruby for Windows ?
I am hoping to find a webserver that can easily be configured to work with Ruby on Rails or Sinatra.
Anyone know of any ?
I use Sinatra+Thin on Windows, sometimes behind either Apache or Nginx as a reverse proxy (to speed up serving static files and to create a pool of 2-4 server instances). The speed is not as good as it is on Ubuntu with similar (or lesser) hardware, but at work I have to use certain servers allocated to me.
To use Thin with Sinatra, simply install Thin, and Sinatra will use it. If you need further help configuring Apache or Nginx, post more questions (after searching the web, of course).
If you want easy, stay with WEBrick.
If you want a production server, go with Apache + Passenger. But that won't be as simple as just using WEBrick.
Probably it is not answer you want but: http://rubyinstaller.org/. Installation is easy - follow instructions to install rails.
Second step is enable/configure port/application in firewall. Because ruby server works on port 3000 but http is common on port 80.
BUT this RoR environment is for development, so don't expect high performance.
I have a Debian Linux VPS server for my production website (512MB).
I'm using Phusion Passenger with Apache to service my Rails 2.3.4 application with Ruby 1.9. I'm limiting the pool of Phusion passenger instances to 3
Although the traffic is relatively low, the server crashes at times and I notice (when using 'top' command) that there are many instances of apache (/usr/sbin/apache2 -k start) maybe like 20 of them taking up all the memory I have and the website become un-responsive.
I'm not sure what to do about this, where to start digging for potential issues or how to spot or limit the number of apache instances.
Thanks,
Tam
If you want to limit the number of Apache processes, look at the documentation for the Multi-Processing Modules. But if you don't have that much traffic (it depends on what you call "relatively low"), it should work out of the box.
Have you tried asking your question over at Server Fault ? You might get better answers there.
Here are my choices:
Apache 2 and Passenger
nginx and Mongrel Cluster
nginx and Passenger
It's a Linux VPS with 256 MB RAM. So, which do you recommend?
I would be going with Apache2 and Passenger as it's super simple to setup and scales well. Also grab the Ruby Enterprise Edition if you're concerned about memory and speed.
nginx uses less memory than Apache, given the size of your setup I would definitely recommend that. Mongrel is OK, but a little dated, and a pain to keep it under control and controlling its memory size. Passenger is a great way to run Ruby on Rails applications, so I would recommend that also. nginx and Passenger, definitely the way to go. My latest business application is running great in production with nginx and Passenger so it is definitely production ready. An added bonus is that nginx serves static and cached content even faster than Apache.
Nginx and Mongrel is supposed to be the tried and true setup.
However, Passenger is supposed to be more memory friendly.
Okay, before you guys go nuts -- this is just a small site, temporary setup. Right now I'm having some internal folks remote into the server and use the site through webrick via the dev command: ruby script/server. Not exactly ideal.
I'm just starting Rails dev and I want to know a better way to handle hosting on a Windows Pro box. Again, just temporary so please be gentle :)
As far as I know, mod_rails isn't an alternative.
Mongrel plays very nice on windows, though, so you can set up a few mongrels and have IIS or Apache proxy to them. Or just use Mongrel directly. Before mod_rails, mongrel was the de facto way to deploy on any platform, so it's a very viable choice.
The one time I was forced to deploy on Windows, however, I installed Ubuntu via virtualbox (could also use VMWare or whatever, of course) and deployed on that. Works like a dream, and I got to work with a sensible OS. Phew. SSH and stuff. Can't live without it. Remote desktop isn't exactly my kind of thing.
Your best bet is to setup a Mongrel cluster. Mongrel is an application server which can serve a Rails application on HTTP. But a single Mongrel instance can only handle 1 request at the same time, so typically people run a cluster of Mongrels, i.e. multiple Mongrel instances. These Mongrel instances do not talk to the Internet directly. Instead, they are put behind a load balancer or a web server, which proxies requests to this cluster of Mongrels. If you use Apache on Windows then you can:
1. Setup and start a cluster of Mongrels, each listening on its own port.
2. Setup a virtual host with some mod_proxy_balancer directives, with which you tell mod_proxy_balancer to proxy all requests to the Mongrel cluster. mod_proxy_balancer will automatically distribute the load between the Mongrels.
If usage is really low i.e. likely to be mostly 1 person at a time or your response time is really low then you can get away with a single mongrel and having your users point there browser to the relevent IP address and port.
For some time before I finally got my apps migrated to our corporate Linux/apache "cloud" (which was anything but straightforward, for mostly internal IT-related reasons) I ran two apps on a workstation, using a separate mongrel (different ports) for each. It worked well enough to be useful for almost a year.
These days (well, about three weeks now) I've substituted the immediacy, control - and vulnerability - of local (under my desk) access for the stability of five servers, each with multiple mongrels, staging areas, and deployment annoyances. Swings and roundabouts.