We started offering Ruby on Rails hosting at Planet Argon over three years ago. At the time fcgi was the best solution aside from pure-cgi. Mongrel became the better solution about a year later and we've not looked back. You'll find much better documentation for mongrel nowadays and am of the opinion that if a web hosting provider is offering fcgi as the default than they're three years behind the technology. ;)
Robby Sent from my iPhone On Mar 6, 2008, at 5:08 AM, maerzbow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have a virtual root server (monthly $10) running some RoR projects > with mediocre traffic by using MONGREL. > It ROCKS. > > But with every new mongrel instance I am getting closer to run out of > system resources. > > > The web is full of posts like: FCGI is dead - Mongrel is the way how > to do it. > But then you see a list of great WebHosting plans like this: > http://www.rubyonrailswebhost.com/ > > > According to the reviews, it seems that these people know how to hist > RoR > But they are all using: FCGI > > > - do you think it is a good idea to get one of these hosting plans? > - does it scale - even if you are getting more traffic as expected? > - are there any other downsides using a webspace hosting over a root > server? > > > what do you think? > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Deploying Rails" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-deployment?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
