[Rails] Re: OT: Rubygems.org down?
I had problems most of the afternoon here in the US with gems located at rubygems.org. Hopefully will be fixed tomorrow. There's gotta be some kinda of redundancy/mirroring provided by this site or at least and indication on the site about the DNS operational status. - Ricardo On Jun 8, 8:19 am, Gernot Ullrich wrote: > Klaus-dieter Gundermann wrote: > > Michael Pavling wrote: > >> Not specifically a Rails problem; but is anyone else having problems > >> accessinghttp://rubygems.orgor installing gems? > > >> It's not working for me from my home internet (in the UK), internet on > >> my phone, or a VM in Chicago... > > >> Having not seen anyone complaining about it this morning makes me > >> wonder if it's just me; but that's three different internet > >> connections failing... > > > The same problem here in Germany: > > >http://www.rubygems.org/ > > Der DNS-Server gab: > > Server Failure: The name server was unable to process this query. > > > C:\>gem install termios > > ERROR: While executing gem ... (Gem::RemoteFetcher::FetchError) > > bad response Service Unavailable 503 > > (http://production.cf.rubygems.org/gems/termios-0.9.4.gem) > > posted onhttp://twitter.com/gemcutter: > Site is up, but DNS is not. Working on it, temp > fix:http://gist.github.com/429688 > -- > 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-t...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
[Rails] Re: rails 3.0
I bought the ebook from Manning publishers "Rails 3 in action" by Yehuda Katz et al. Unfortunately is not ready yet but keep an eye on it as they send releases periodically. - Ricardo On Aug 26, 12:03 pm, RORock wrote: > can some tell me where i can find rails 3.0 ebooks for free? > > Thanks > MNT --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Rails] Re: Deployment Question
I would suggest to start small at first (single-server instance) unless you have a pretty good indication that your site is gonna be a huge success on the day of launch. Should that be the case, you can investigate some of the cloud- hosting solutions which would scale quite nicely as needed (and you pay per actual usage). A couple of suggestions for Rails apps are Heroku and Engine Yard. Of course, you can go with a cheaper shared hosting platform for your single server. Separating that architecture into a multi-server architecture is not straighforward but highly doable. Lots of tutorial around in the web on how to do that type of setup. - Ricardo On Aug 27, 10:47 am, "tashfeen.ekram" wrote: > OK sounds good. > > So, I imagine one will have to port the data over to the new server. > It just seems like there might be some loss of data if the time takes > too long between swithcing. i guess we cross the bridge when it > comes. > > On Aug 26, 5:23 pm, John Yerhot wrote: > > > > > I wouldn't worry about scaling till you have to do it. > > > But, going from a 1 server setup (app and db on the same server) to a > > 2 server setup (1 app and 1 db) is pretty easy. All you'd have to > > really do to your app is change your database.yml to point to your new > > db server. > > > On Aug 26, 2:04 pm, "tashfeen.ekram" wrote: > > > > I am getting ready deploy my app and trying to figure its > > > configuration to allow for scaling if needed. I am looking at > > > deploying on Amazon. I do not expect high traffic in the beginning > > > (though that is completely a conjecture), i was thinking of deploying > > > the whole app including a MySQL on the single instance. I am trying to > > > figure out how difficult would it be if I had to separate the > > > components with having the db on its own instance with balance loading > > > and front end servers all running on their own instances. Is it easy > > > to make that transition or is it difficult enough that one should just > > > setup the more redundant setup now to avoid the difficulty. > > > > thanks!- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Rails] Re: best "Rails on the cloud" solution?
RightScale is good solution but very expensive, a cheaper alternative is using Scalr (scalr.net) and they have both a free version (open source) as well as a paid service (scalr.net being the paid service, only $50/month + Amazon fees). Both RightScale and Scalr are considered cloud management tools and they work very well with Amazon Web Services (EC2/S3/EBS...) RightScale feature set is richer than Scalr. You should keep in mind that Amazon is not the only kid in the game (in the PaaS - platform as a Service). There is also GoGrid and Rackspace (with their cloud offering options). Finally, there is a new breed of rails hosting solutions: Heroku and EngineYard (Solo/Flex). They provide free trials of their services and a wide range of plans. Heroku uses Amazon's servers while Engine Yard uses Joyent. If you use Aptana's IDE for rails development, they also provide a cloud hosting offering (AptanaCloud). So there are tons of options. The problem is that there is a wide range of expertise required for rails deployment. If you want to deal the least with server configuration, I would strongly suggest a service like Heroku (they even have github integration). I havent used EngineYard's but their Solo offering seems quite good for development/testing as well. The moment you need production-ready features then you have to start paying for more in both Heroku/ EngineYard's offerings. - Ricardo On Aug 15, 8:01 pm, Conrad Taylor wrote: > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Jeff Pritchard < > > > > > > rails-mailing-l...@andreas-s.net> wrote: > > > A search of this forum for "cloud" brought up a pretty anemic and mostly > > year or more old list of stuff. That was a bit of a surprise to me. > > > I'm interested in getting opinions on the easiest way to deploy a Rails > > app to a well known (S3 or similar) "cloud" server. > > > It should be something with little or no "installation" or > > "establishment" fees and no monthly fees...just the per/megabyte traffic > > fees. > > > Would be great if deployment was via capistrano, just like a VM or > > dedicated server would be. > > > Has anyone made this cheap and easy yet? Or do you still have to roll > > your own implementation using API's that were designed to be general in > > nature and thus requiring significant development effort to get it > > deployed? > > > thanks, > > jp > > -- > > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > I am using Rightscale and I'm very happy with the Rails integration. BTW, > Rightscale is a front-end to Amazon Services (i.e. EC2, S3, Cloudfront, and > so on). Also, it costs a bit more for their service in addition to Amazon > charges > but it was well worth it for our business. This will be common with the > other > front-ends to Amazon. > > Furthermore, I'm very pleased with the ability to have better control as to > what's > going on with my server instances. Also, if you're publishing a lot of > media assets > and the site has a great deal of traffic, then I would recommend having some > CDN functionality within your sites' configuration. Hulu.com would be a > very good > example of the use of a CDN and Rails. > > When I was in Japan, I noticed that every Japanese site was extremely fast > being > that my connection speed was 1 Giga bit per second. However, it was a > sudden > drop-off when accessing sites in the US that didn't have a local CDN. Thus, > you should > use a CDN where it makes sense for creating the best user experience. > > Next, I would first focus on building solid Rails website architecture > before thinking about > scaling a site that doesn't exist by using the cloud. Once the site has > been built, then > you can make better decisions on how to properly scale your site. For > examples, there are > tools that can easily allow one to simulate N concurrent users across > multiple servers > > Lastly, it doesn't matter which option you select you'll have to pay for any > high-traffic site > that uses a lot of bandwidth. Thus, you may also want to take a look at > Google App Engine. > > Good luck, > > -Conrad > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Rails] Re: I need a lot of advice here - let's start from the beginning
For IDE, I would suggesst Aptana's RadRails (http://www.aptana.com/ rails). It is based on Eclipse and designed well to implement/deploy RoR applications (it has a nice feature called AptanaCloud which lets you deploy RoR applications in the cloud in minutes). One thing to remember, building RoR applications is just one part of the equation, with the other being deployment. There are several solutions around for this (mongrels+rails, apache+phusion-passenger+rails, etc.) and they all require certain level of Linux expertise. That is what makes an IDE like RadRails sweet: it will take care of the deployment part for you so you can focus on building the application and not have to configure a Linux Box with server capabilities. Regards, - Ricardo Sanchez rsanchez.jayh...@gmail.com On May 28, 10:05 pm, Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: > Jim wrote: > > [...] > > > I recommend using Netbeans as a development environment after you do > > your first couple of projects. > > I'm going to disagree rather strongly here. Rails doesn't seem to lend > itself all that well to "heavy" IDEs like Eclipse (which I used to use, > and would probably still use for Java) and NetBeans (haven't used, but > seems like the same niche). I've had much better luck with simpler > tools like jEdit (seehttp://marnen.livejournal.comfor setup info) and > KomodoEdit (my current choice), or even plain editors like TextWrangler. > > (BTW, Eclipse and NetBeans *still* don't do word wrap reliably. WTF?) > > Best, > -- > Marnen Laibow-Koserhttp://www.marnen.org > mar...@marnen.org > -- > 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
