Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
Is Rails on IIS dead?

We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
looks dire for Ruby on Rails... We could do with a straight answer.

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

Search Discussions

  • Kevin Bedell at Dec 13, 2011 at 5:22 pm
    What is IIS?
    On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:16 PM, John Doe wrote:
    Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
    Is Rails on IIS dead?
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • John Doe at Dec 13, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    Kevin Bedell wrote in post #1036546:
    What is IIS?
    Your are kidding, right?

    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Michael Pavling at Dec 13, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    On 13 Dec 2011 17:31, "John Doe" wrote:
    Kevin Bedell wrote in post #1036546:
    What is IIS?
    Your are kidding, right?
    Why should he be?
    This is a Rails list; if you asked on a .Net list whether C# apps could be
    deployed with Passenger, some people there might ask what 'Passenger' is :-/

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Michael Pavling at Dec 13, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    On 13 December 2011 17:40, Michael Pavling wrote:
    This is a Rails list; if you asked on a .Net list whether C# apps could be
    deployed with Passenger, some people there might ask what 'Passenger' is :-/
    /s/Passenger/Nginx

    ...would probably be a better equivalent ;-)

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Michael Pavling at Dec 13, 2011 at 5:22 pm

    On 13 December 2011 17:16, John Doe wrote:
    Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
    Is Rails on IIS dead?
    Was it ever alive?! :-/
    We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
    looks dire for Ruby on Rails... We could do with a straight answer.
    hmmm... maybe the situation looks dire for IIS? Are you somehow
    constrained to IIS for your web application?

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • DK at Dec 13, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:
    On 13 December 2011 17:16, John Doe wrote:
    Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
    Is Rails on IIS dead?
    Was it ever alive?! :-/
    We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
    looks dire for Ruby on Rails... We could do with a straight answer.
    hmmm... maybe the situation looks dire for IIS? Are you somehow
    constrained to IIS for your web application?
    I tried on IIS about 1.5 years ago.... hey, not sure but I hear the folks
    at Bloomberg.com develop rails on windows, not sure if they deploy to
    windows but maybe that is a lead. But really my experience was a nightmare
    trying to deploy on windows.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
    "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Michael Pavling at Dec 13, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    On 13 December 2011 17:31, DK wrote:
    not sure but I hear the folks at
    Bloomberg.com develop rails on windows, not sure if they deploy to windows
    but maybe that is a lead. But really my experience was a nightmare trying to
    deploy on windows.
    "Windows" is not necessarily "IIS" - it's perfectly possible to deploy
    on Windows (with Apache, Passenger, etc). Deploying with IIS as per
    the OP... that's likely to be much harder.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • John Doe at Dec 13, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    Michael Pavling wrote in post #1036557:
    On 13 December 2011 17:31, DK wrote:

    "Windows" is not necessarily "IIS" - it's perfectly possible to deploy
    on Windows (with Apache, Passenger, etc). Deploying with IIS as per
    the OP... that's likely to be much harder.
    I am aware that you can install Apache on Windows and that may be an
    option if I can persuade (using appropriate supportable arguments)
    someone to approve it. Looking at some of the comments I Have come
    across on other forums, they seem to concur with your last statement
    that setting up on IIS is (or at least was at the time) rather complex.
    However, I am bound by corporate policy to at least explore the
    possibility of using the native web server using other options only as a
    last resort (i.e. where this can be proven not to be possible or
    practical).

    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Craig White at Dec 13, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    On Dec 13, 2011, at 11:09 AM, John Doe wrote:

    Michael Pavling wrote in post #1036557:
    On 13 December 2011 17:31, DK wrote:

    "Windows" is not necessarily "IIS" - it's perfectly possible to deploy
    on Windows (with Apache, Passenger, etc). Deploying with IIS as per
    the OP... that's likely to be much harder.
    I am aware that you can install Apache on Windows and that may be an
    option if I can persuade (using appropriate supportable arguments)
    someone to approve it. Looking at some of the comments I Have come
    across on other forums, they seem to concur with your last statement
    that setting up on IIS is (or at least was at the time) rather complex.
    However, I am bound by corporate policy to at least explore the
    possibility of using the native web server using other options only as a
    last resort (i.e. where this can be proven not to be possible or
    practical).
    ----
    seems that there is a language or perception issue too.

    IIS is not any more 'native' than Apache...

    IIS is a Microsoft supplied application/service and Apache is not.

    But they both can and do run on Windows so they are both 'native'

    There are few who develop RoR applications on Windows and thus there isn't a great amount of resources for Windows developers which has only been made worse by the fact that RoR has been a fast moving framework.

    The same holds true for deployment - perhaps even more so because of the reliance upon things like passenger.

    I seem to recall that various versions of mongrel were possible for Windows IIS and thus would permit you to deploy but I don't know that they have been updated for Windows recently.

    At any rate, you could probably use IIS to proxy connections to Apache running on other ports and thus have IIS servicing all port 80 traffic.

    Craig

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Michael Pavling at Dec 13, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    On 13 December 2011 18:09, John Doe wrote:
    However, I am bound by corporate policy to at least explore the
    possibility of using the native web server using other options only as a
    last resort (i.e. where this can be proven not to be possible or
    practical).
    Well, that's understandable, and you have my sympathy (I left your
    type of role for freelancing a few years ago, and was very glad to
    leave the worst of the corporate politics behind ;-)

    So; trying to be impartial [1], you have two choices. Stick to the
    corporate policy. and develop in .Net MVC (I'm afraid I can't even
    pass comment, because I've not been near it), or explain about the
    increased RoI, opportunity costs, workforce happiness, and other
    benefits of working with Rails.

    Flipping the questions around: what's making you think that you would
    like to commence your development with RoR? Do you have existing
    skills in house?

    PS I know of all sorts of large corporates that run Rails projects:
    Virgin Media, the BBC, BaeSystems, among others... if it's good enough
    for them, then maybe your bosses will reconsider whether it'll do for
    you

    [1] but not succeeding, I'm afraid :-)

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Walter Lee Davis at Dec 13, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    On Dec 13, 2011, at 12:16 PM, John Doe wrote:

    Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
    Is Rails on IIS dead?

    We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
    looks dire for Ruby on Rails... We could do with a straight answer.
    Do any of those references refer to Rack? I think that's the issue any more. I'm pretty sure that if you can host a Rack application on IIS, then you can host Rails.

    I've never tried, because I've never needed to. I last used IIS in the late 90s, and I'm pretty sure it's changed a lot since then, but at the time, it was in principle trying very hard to ape the Apache conventions so as to ease uptake. Things like .htaccess and CGI and address rewriting were designed to be fairly transferable from one environment to the other.

    What is your use-case that is binding you to IIS?

    Walter

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • John Doe at Dec 13, 2011 at 5:56 pm
    I appreciate the answers, but, why is everyone asking about my business
    case for IIS?

    Suffice it to say that I am bound by corporate policy which is now
    committed to Microsoft technology. I don't want to get into an argument
    over merits of Apache versus IIS but corporate policy perceives Apache
    as a quirky open source thing that poses a security risk. Having to
    manually keep it up to date and the relatively large volume of security
    bulletins appear to have contributed to this perception.

    Walter, its not about Rack. There is a 10 steps document which doesn't
    work and there are links to FastCGI and RubyForIIS which no longer
    appear to be available. I guess I'm asking whethere there exists an
    up-to-date and working Rails ISAPI module for IIS.

    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Michael Pavling at Dec 13, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    On 13 December 2011 17:56, John Doe wrote:
    I appreciate the answers, but, why is everyone asking about my business
    case for IIS?
    Because you're telling us about a problem you have, and we're asking
    you to back-up a little...
    Suffice it to say that I am bound by corporate policy which is now
    committed to Microsoft technology.
    Well, then you won't be using Rails, as it's not MS technology, and
    you would be breaching your corporate policy if you did.
    Alternatively, if you can meet your "policy" by using Windows servers,
    but other software (like Apache, or even a *nix VM running on a
    Windows-based hypervisor...) then Rails may be an option.
    over merits of Apache versus IIS but corporate policy perceives Apache
    as a quirky open source thing that poses a security risk.
    As opposed to quirky closed source things that pose security risks?!
    Sounds like you have a management-education problem ;-)

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • John Doe at Dec 13, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    Michael Pavling wrote in post #1036562:
    On 13 December 2011 17:56, John Doe wrote:
    Suffice it to say that I am bound by corporate policy which is now
    committed to Microsoft technology.
    Well, then you won't be using Rails, as it's not MS technology, and
    you would be breaching your corporate policy if you did.
    Well, let's just say that Ruby/Rails appears to be the natural way to
    move on from Perl, but that's another argument....
    As opposed to quirky closed source things that pose security risks?!
    But at least we have Windows Update Services which ticks the relevant
    box niceley....
    Sounds like you have a management-education problem ;-)
    Its an all eggs in one basket contract leading to a management-brainwash
    problem ;-)

    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Miquel Cubel at Dec 13, 2011 at 6:17 pm
    Hi,

    You can have a look at
    http://www.helicontech.com/zoo/

    I used to work with .Net, now I'm developing with RoR (for a year) from windows platform, and my
    recommendation will be to stay with ubuntu + apache server for production, as much as I will
    recommend to stay with windows + IIS for .Net applications and not to use wine for production
    (same case the opposite). It's like having two cars one with gasoline and the other with
    diesel, they can both work well (not to say that one is better than the other one) and you can
    eventually consider only buying gasoline because it's the standard and certificated fuel of
    the company and it might work for a while, but is a bad long term decision.

    Greetings,

    El 13/12/2011 18:16, John Doe escribió: Internet references are years out of date and links to
    downloads broken. Is Rails on IIS dead? We need to make a development decision and right now the
    situation it looks dire for Ruby on Rails... We could do with a straight answer.
    -- Miquel Cubel Escarré http://railsdynamics.blogspot.com +34 699 73 22 46
    mcubel@gmail.com
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails:
    Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Frederick Cheung at Dec 13, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    On Dec 13, 5:16 pm, John Doe wrote:
    Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
    Is Rails on IIS dead?

    We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
    looks dire for Ruby on Rails... We could do with a straight answer.
    These guys were asking for feedback / testing on their rails on IIS
    deployment solution a few months ago :
    http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/d5bce3a24648c991/f97652ab21d5ce28?lnk=gst&q=iis#f97652ab21d5ce28

    Fred

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Luis Lavena at Dec 13, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    On Dec 13, 2:16 pm, John Doe wrote:
    Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
    Is Rails on IIS dead?

    We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
    looks dire for Ruby on Rails... We could do with a straight answer.
    Please look into Helicon Zoo:

    http://www.helicontech.com/zoo/

    It contains a Rack-based IIS adapter. I believe requires Ruby 1.9.2
    minimum and work with IIS and IIS Express

    The previous versions of Ruby/Rails for IIS will not work mainly
    because:

    * Where compiled with an incompatible version of Visual Studio that do
    not link to the same version of the CRT and thus, segfaults.
    * Is no longer maintained
    * FastCGI (which was used for those IIS plugins) do not compile under
    MinGW/GCC, which is the one used by latest Ruby installers.

    Hope that helps.
    --
    Luis Lavena

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Pieter Hugo at Dec 15, 2011 at 7:41 am
    Dont know about IIS but running rails on Windows is dog slow. I develop
    on a Windows box and deploy on Linux and the speed difference is marked.
    Have heard the same from others.

    Pieter Hugo

    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Michael Pavling at Dec 15, 2011 at 8:10 am

    On 15 December 2011 07:41, Pieter Hugo wrote:
    Dont know about IIS but running rails on Windows is dog slow. I develop
    on a Windows box and deploy on Linux and the speed difference is marked.
    Have heard the same from others.
    Is that difference as noticeable if you run your Windows development
    machine in "production" mode?...

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Luis Lavena at Dec 15, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    On Dec 15, 5:09 am, Michael Pavling wrote:
    On 15 December 2011 07:41, Pieter Hugo wrote:

    Dont know about IIS but running rails on Windows is dog slow. I develop
    on a Windows box and deploy on Linux and the speed difference is marked.
    Have heard the same from others.
    Is that difference as noticeable if you run your Windows development
    machine in "production" mode?...
    The performance difference is in startup, not execution. Code load and
    reload (during dev) slower on Windows than Linux, and is due how Ruby
    C code is implemented.

    Once the application starts performance is very good.

    I've blogged about my presentation at RubyConf Argentina:
    http://blog.mmediasys.com/2011/11/26/rubyconf-argentina-and-fenix/
    (Sorry, slides are in spanish)

    And someone blogged about the work I mention there before:
    http://itreallymatters.net/post/12897174267/speedup-ruby-1-9-3-on-windows

    Cheers,
    --
    Luis Lavena

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • John Doe at Dec 16, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Pieter Hugo wrote in post #1036832:
    Dont know about IIS but running rails on Windows is dog slow. I develop
    on a Windows box and deploy on Linux and the speed difference is marked.
    Have heard the same from others.

    Pieter Hugo
    I got a blank Rails project up and running and I noticed it takes at
    least 30-60 secs to load up the hello page on an idle server, sometimes
    much longer and this delay is highly variable. This is just crazy. From
    my research via Google it does not appear to be just an IIS problem
    either, although its apparently much worse on IIS. I have also
    discovered that there are complaints about ruby being slower by orders
    of magnitude compared to other scripting languages, rails performance
    being generally poor and an apparent self-defeating reluctance by the
    developpers to support rails properly on the worlds most popular
    commercial platform. This is a great shame, since the potential for
    development appears to be huge if the hype is to be believed but the
    above problems appear to be an obstacle to takeup.

    I still need to understand terms such as rack, passenger, mongrel,
    webrick etc and where they fit in but I'm already thinking of abandoning
    rails. However, before I do that, I am going to test it for comparison
    on Apache for Windows.

    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Luis Lavena at Dec 16, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    On Dec 16, 11:24 am, John Doe wrote:
    Pieter Hugo wrote in post #1036832:
    Dont know about IIS but running rails on Windows is dog slow. I develop
    on a Windows box and deploy on Linux and the speed difference is marked.
    Have heard the same from others.
    Pieter Hugo
    I got a blank Rails project up and running and I noticed it takes at
    least 30-60 secs to load up the hello page on an idle server, sometimes
    much longer and this delay is highly variable. This is just crazy. From
    my research via Google it does not appear to be just an IIS problem
    either, although its apparently much worse on IIS. I have also
    discovered that there are complaints about ruby being slower by orders
    of magnitude compared to other scripting languages, rails performance
    being generally poor and an apparent self-defeating reluctance by the
    developpers to support rails properly on the worlds most popular
    commercial platform. This is a great shame, since the potential for
    development appears to be huge if the hype is to be believed but the
    above problems appear to be an obstacle to takeup.
    Please see my previous response on this subject:

    https://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk/msg/44eedbb72013d8d0

    The first request, which loads the code in memory will be slow, even
    slower in development mode due code reload and because loading code in
    Windows is slow (again, see my previous response)
    I still need to understand terms such as rack, passenger, mongrel,
    webrick etc and where they fit in but I'm already thinking of abandoning
    rails. However, before I do that, I am going to test it for comparison
    on Apache for Windows.
    Will not make a difference, please see my previous comment.

    At this time, if you have the alternative to implement your
    application in other than IIS or WIndows, go to Linux and use 1.9.3 +
    Passenger and Nginx.

    --
    Luis Lavena

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Craig White at Dec 16, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    On Dec 16, 2011, at 7:24 AM, John Doe wrote:

    Pieter Hugo wrote in post #1036832:
    Dont know about IIS but running rails on Windows is dog slow. I develop
    on a Windows box and deploy on Linux and the speed difference is marked.
    Have heard the same from others.

    Pieter Hugo
    I got a blank Rails project up and running and I noticed it takes at
    least 30-60 secs to load up the hello page on an idle server, sometimes
    much longer and this delay is highly variable. This is just crazy. From
    my research via Google it does not appear to be just an IIS problem
    either, although its apparently much worse on IIS. I have also
    discovered that there are complaints about ruby being slower by orders
    of magnitude compared to other scripting languages, rails performance
    being generally poor and an apparent self-defeating reluctance by the
    developpers to support rails properly on the worlds most popular
    commercial platform. This is a great shame, since the potential for
    development appears to be huge if the hype is to be believed but the
    above problems appear to be an obstacle to takeup.

    I still need to understand terms such as rack, passenger, mongrel,
    webrick etc and where they fit in but I'm already thinking of abandoning
    rails. However, before I do that, I am going to test it for comparison
    on Apache for Windows.
    ----
    Probably should abandon RoR

    If your metric is using Windows for deployment, you won't be happy with the results and that it performs poorly when deployed on Windows hardly comes as a surprise.

    Your expression of Windows as critical to RoR ignores the reality that the majority of web servers are clearly not Microsoft. The developers of RoR don't worry about Windows deployment because they don't need to - as you said, there's enough hype/buzz and obviously deployment platforms for it not to be a concern. If there are users who have to go elsewhere because of their 'lockin' to Windows as the primary deployment platform, so be it.

    You should file a bug report with Microsoft asking them to create ruby/rails cgi/gateway to deploy applications via IIS. Maybe the world's most popular commercial platform should learn to support middleware other than their own.

    Craig

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Frederick Cheung at Dec 16, 2011 at 9:57 pm
    You should file a bug report with Microsoft asking them to create ruby/rails cgi/gateway to deploy applications via IIS. Maybe the world's most popular commercial platform should learn to support middleware other than their own.
    Is Microsoft still funding ironruby?

    Fred
    Craig

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Daniel Shimoyama at Dec 17, 2011 at 3:55 am
    No, its over.

    2011/12/16 Frederick Cheung <frederick.cheung@gmail.com>:
    You should file a bug report with Microsoft asking them to create ruby/rails cgi/gateway to deploy applications via IIS. Maybe the world's most popular commercial platform should learn to support middleware other than their own.
    Is Microsoft still funding ironruby?

    Fred
    Craig

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • John Ivanoff at Dec 17, 2011 at 5:50 pm
    Where I work we are a MS shop but I got ROR in there. I did get my ap
    running on a win 2k with apache. I actually had .asp and ROR apps
    running on the same box. My ROR app was slow. I was able to spin up a
    Ubuntu VM and it ran faster. When I showed that I was BBD they liked
    that. Showing them my method of testing and building they got
    comfortable with it. Now we are rewriting one of our enterprise apps
    in ROR. Communication was the key and it didn't happen over night. I
    feel lucky.

    I never had to use the "but your iPad isn't a windows product."

    Good luck. Keep pushing. Show the managers how it will help them. All
    the gems you can use to save time to write apps. Saving time = spacing
    money right?

    Done rambling.

    Cheers,
    John
    On Dec 16, 9:55 pm, Daniel Shimoyama wrote:
    No, its over.

    2011/12/16 Frederick Cheung <frederick.che...@gmail.com>:








    You should file a bug report with Microsoft asking them to create ruby/rails cgi/gateway to deploy applications via IIS. Maybe the world's most popular commercial platform should learn to support middleware other than their own.
    Is Microsoft still funding ironruby?
    Fred
    Craig
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Paul D. at Dec 21, 2011 at 1:17 am
    John,

    I am in the same boat. It looks like IIS is a poor choice.

    If we replace IIS with Apache, would the speed problem persist?

    Paul

    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • John Ivanoff at Dec 22, 2011 at 5:00 am
    It did sped it up. I actually had ISS and Apache serving pages on the
    same box.
    I also got nginx to run on it. Seemed flakey. This is also two years
    ago.
    My ISS app was used to check what is available to rent by our sales
    team. Worked fine. I wouldn't try a heavy traffic site on it.

    Like I said it's been a while but I might have some posts on what I
    did
    http://johnivanoff.blogspot.com
    I sure have some files laying around too.
    Any questions let me know.

    Cheers,
    John

    On Dec 20, 7:17 pm, "Paul D." wrote:
    John,

    I am in the same boat. It looks like IIS is a poor choice.

    If we replace IIS with Apache, would the speed problem persist?

    Paul

    --
    Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • John Maxwell at Dec 22, 2011 at 5:43 am
    This seems like a cruel joke to have to constrain RoR, or any modern web
    framework to IIS. If your company are concerned about rails
    implementations not being "enterprise" enough, then JRuby comes to the
    rescue - coupling the ease of rails with the enterprise power of the JVM
    - possibly worth a look.

    Apache + Passenger will be much quicker than IIS for running Rails, as
    Passenger was designed to do it, unlike IIS. If you're waiting 30sec+
    for first page load though, something else is wrong - if I take a deep
    breath go back to windows, it takes around 5sec here with a modern CPU
    and MRI1.9.2.

    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Slava Shynkarenko at Dec 27, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    John Maxwell wrote in post #1037800:
    This seems like a cruel joke to have to constrain RoR, or any modern web
    framework to IIS. If your company are concerned about rails
    implementations not being "enterprise" enough, then JRuby comes to the
    rescue - coupling the ease of rails with the enterprise power of the JVM
    - possibly worth a look.
    Oh yes, because IIS is a piece of brachiosaurus bond, found by Microsoft
    somewhere near Silicon Valley :-) Funny though, ASP.NET and Node.js on
    IIS make Rails a sad joke, both being modern-shmodern all right.
    Apache + Passenger will be much quicker than IIS for running Rails, as
    Passenger was designed to do it, unlike IIS. If you're waiting 30sec+
    for first page load though, something else is wrong - if I take a deep
    breath go back to windows, it takes around 5sec here with a modern CPU
    and MRI1.9.2.
    I’m not sure Apache was designed for Rails either. Passenger does all
    the job. But it’s not the fastest solution! We did several performance
    tests, comparing IIS (with Helicon Zoo), Apache and Nginx on both
    Windows and Ubuntu. The first place took Nginx+Thin on Ubuntu. With
    little difference there was IIS+Helicon Zoo. Apache+Passenger took 3rd
    place. Other combinations were worse.

    Well, 2—3 years ago there was a gap between Ruby developers on Windows
    and Linux/Mac. But there isn’t any more. Windows actually gets much more
    attention by both MRI and gems developers. I can assure you, IIS is
    robust and mature web-server and the platform is ready to host Ruby
    applications.

    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouprubyonrails-talk @
categoriesrubyonrails
postedDec 13, '11 at 5:17p
activeDec 27, '11 at 9:09p
posts31
users11
websiterubyonrails.org
irc#RubyOnRails

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase