[Lift] Re: Deploying with Jetty (and Apache too?)
Couldn't recommend trying nginx enough... i've been using it in production for 4 years and just cant fault it... Cheers, Tim On May 27, 9:23 pm, Joe Wass wrote: > Thanks, that's what I thought. But you can get some nasty surprises if > you make assumptions. > > I've heard a lot about nginx (none of it bad). I might give it a go if > I find I have more complex needs... > > Joe > > On May 27, 8:26 pm, David Pollak > wrote: > > > > > Jetty's fine for serving static content. It's not going to be materially > > slower than Apache. > > > I would remove Apache from the mix all together. It adds nothing other than > > nice logging. I use Nginx because it's lighter weight and does a lot better > > with a lot of open HTTP requests (think Comet). > > > So, I'd opt for #1. By the time you're serving up enough pages to push the > > limits of SliceHost, you're probably serving 60+ pages/second and might have > > a real business. > > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Joe Wass wrote: > > > > Hi everyone. > > > > I'm planning to deploy a Lift app on a virtual host (Slicehost) with > > > Jetty. I'm also running one or two sites on the side, but nothing too > > > heavy. I want to try running with 256 MB RAM (I could go to 512 but > > > I'd rather not pay for that if I don't have to!). I currently use > > > virtual hosts to serve a handful of static sites with Apache. > > > > The choices, as I see them: > > > > -- Host the static sites in Jetty (I believe it can do virtual hosts?) > > > and run it on :80, losing Apache. > > > -- Host the Lift bit with Jetty forwarding (I don't know the terms > > > yet) through Apache and let Apache deal with virtual hosts and serve > > > up the static content. > > > -- Something else? > > > > I'm guessing the first one will be the simpler. I suppose the question > > > is, is Jetty designed to serve static content and does it perform > > > well? In trying to lose Apache, I'm aiming to run it on a machine with > > > specs as low as possible. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Joe > > > -- > > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net > > Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 > > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp > > Git some:http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Deploying with Jetty (and Apache too?)
Thanks, that's what I thought. But you can get some nasty surprises if you make assumptions. I've heard a lot about nginx (none of it bad). I might give it a go if I find I have more complex needs... Joe On May 27, 8:26 pm, David Pollak wrote: > Jetty's fine for serving static content. It's not going to be materially > slower than Apache. > > I would remove Apache from the mix all together. It adds nothing other than > nice logging. I use Nginx because it's lighter weight and does a lot better > with a lot of open HTTP requests (think Comet). > > So, I'd opt for #1. By the time you're serving up enough pages to push the > limits of SliceHost, you're probably serving 60+ pages/second and might have > a real business. > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Joe Wass wrote: > > > Hi everyone. > > > I'm planning to deploy a Lift app on a virtual host (Slicehost) with > > Jetty. I'm also running one or two sites on the side, but nothing too > > heavy. I want to try running with 256 MB RAM (I could go to 512 but > > I'd rather not pay for that if I don't have to!). I currently use > > virtual hosts to serve a handful of static sites with Apache. > > > The choices, as I see them: > > > -- Host the static sites in Jetty (I believe it can do virtual hosts?) > > and run it on :80, losing Apache. > > -- Host the Lift bit with Jetty forwarding (I don't know the terms > > yet) through Apache and let Apache deal with virtual hosts and serve > > up the static content. > > -- Something else? > > > I'm guessing the first one will be the simpler. I suppose the question > > is, is Jetty designed to serve static content and does it perform > > well? In trying to lose Apache, I'm aiming to run it on a machine with > > specs as low as possible. > > > Thanks! > > > Joe > > -- > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net > Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp > Git some:http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: Deploying with Jetty (and Apache too?)
Jetty's fine for serving static content. It's not going to be materially slower than Apache. I would remove Apache from the mix all together. It adds nothing other than nice logging. I use Nginx because it's lighter weight and does a lot better with a lot of open HTTP requests (think Comet). So, I'd opt for #1. By the time you're serving up enough pages to push the limits of SliceHost, you're probably serving 60+ pages/second and might have a real business. On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Joe Wass wrote: > > Hi everyone. > > I'm planning to deploy a Lift app on a virtual host (Slicehost) with > Jetty. I'm also running one or two sites on the side, but nothing too > heavy. I want to try running with 256 MB RAM (I could go to 512 but > I'd rather not pay for that if I don't have to!). I currently use > virtual hosts to serve a handful of static sites with Apache. > > The choices, as I see them: > > -- Host the static sites in Jetty (I believe it can do virtual hosts?) > and run it on :80, losing Apache. > -- Host the Lift bit with Jetty forwarding (I don't know the terms > yet) through Apache and let Apache deal with virtual hosts and serve > up the static content. > -- Something else? > > I'm guessing the first one will be the simpler. I suppose the question > is, is Jetty designed to serve static content and does it perform > well? In trying to lose Apache, I'm aiming to run it on a machine with > specs as low as possible. > > Thanks! > > Joe > > > > -- Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp Git some: http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
