Search results

In a load balancing environment, we still recommend using LiteSpeed + LSAPI on each cluster node, should be faster than running Mongrels. Capistrano does not do the load balancing directly, it manages all Mongrel instances in a cluster. It can be used to manage a LiteSpeed cluster as well...

It is the best choice to use LiteSpeed + Ruby LSAPI, no need of load balancing if it is only one server setup. Mongrel will require mongrel_cluster + load balancing capable web server in production, LiteSpeed is one of those, however it is not recommended due to configuration complexities and...

What you proposed does not help, as all requests still go through Apache. You should replace Apache with LiteSpeed and let LiteSpeed handle everything, unless there is something that LiteSpeed is incapable of. Are you using any control panel? Anyway, you can follow our cPanel how to let...

Want to know what other peoples think about LiteSpeed? check links below. :D http://www.digg.com/software/LiteSpeed_Best_platform_to_host_Ruby_on_Rails http://www.benmyles.com/2007/2/6/four-reasons-to-love-litespeed http://www.monkeytreats.com/2007/3/16/litespeed-kicks-ass...

Thanks! The typo will be fixed in 3.0.1

That's correct. If a application is CPU bound, you have to use more powerful CPU, if it is disk bound, add more HDs and/or use faster HD, if it is network bound upgrade the network connection. You should always attack the real bottle neck, adding more worker processes may help to certain...

1) then no shared memory is used. 2) Probably not, it is pretty low level, and is upto the developer of each component in Rails, you'd better spend sometime to find a way to optimize your application to use less memory. 4) Yes, that's correct. :)

I think it may not be possible, even though there is a trick can execute an executable on noexec partition. But it is just a hack, may be disabled in later release. To better deal with vnlerable scripts, my suggestion is to harden the security on your server as much as you can, and chroot if...

The leading '/' got choped off for rewrite rules in a .htaccess file, it is called "rewrite base" in Apache. :)

It depends on whether you compile your own php binary or use our pre-built binary. Anyway, the phpinfo() page should tell you which php.ini is used.

You can try increasing the global memory limit under "server"->"security" as well.

You can use "%n" to back reference matched part from rewritecond in the final URL.

That's true that rewrite rule only matches URI part, however, you can deal with query-string with a rewrite condition. :)

2.2.6 will notify you about hte new release.

This issue should be addressed in 3.0.1 release.

You can use FCGI PHP binary with LSWS, but it will not give you the best performance. To use LSAPI PHP, you have to compile your own. It should not cause any significant downtime. You can use the same configuration options as the output of phpinfo() or "php -i", remove fcgi related options...

I just realized There is a problem with your matching URI, it does not include query sting when matching the expression. So, in this case, you have to use a Rewrite rule for this.

You need to move this matching context up above the first non-matching context to give it higher priority. The context configuration looks fine.

I see, that's why. Can you switch to gzip compression in PHP? or turn off compression in php and let LSWS handle this? LSWS only support gzip compression, this special case will be fixed, deflated content will not be touched.

I think it is the memory limit for ruby process. You need to increase the Memory soft/hard limit under "Ruby" tab.