Rails：是否适合生产部署？ [英] Rails: is Passenger Standalone suitable for production deployment?

问题描述

问题标题几乎总结了...我没有找到任何优秀的资源，概述了使用Phusion Passenger Standalone进行Rails应用程序部署的优缺点。如何与运行Nginx或Passenger Apache相比较？像.htaccess这样的事情继续按预期工作吗？任何见解将不胜感激！

谢谢！

解决方案

建在Nginx之上。您可以直接将其附加到端口80，它的行为非常类似于Phusion Passenger + Nginx：它可以很快地提供静态文件，它会根据流量自动启动和停止进程，它会自动重新启动进程崩溃，它将负责平衡进程之间的负载均衡流量等。性能方面，它与Nginx的Phusion乘客完全相同。所以是的，你可以在生产中使用它。

Nginx不支持.htaccess。这是一个Apache的东西。

如果你运行多个Standalones，比运行一个单一的Phusion乘客Nginx有一点记忆力，但开销相对较小。 p>

The question title pretty much sums it up... I haven't been able to find any good resources that outline the pros / cons of using Phusion Passenger Standalone for Rails App Deployment. How does it compare to running Passenger Nginx or Passenger Apache? Do things like .htaccess continue to work as expected? Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

解决方案

Standalone is built on top of Nginx. You can directly attach it to port 80 and it'll behave pretty much like Phusion Passenger + Nginx: it can serve static files very quickly, it'll automatically start and stop processes based on traffic, it'll auto-restart processes when they crash, it'll take care of fairly load balancing traffic between processes, etc. Performance-wise, it's exactly the same as Phusion Passenger for Nginx. So yes you can use it in production.

Nginx does not support .htaccess. It's an Apache thing.

If you run multiple Standalones it's a little bit more memory-heavy than running a single Phusion Passenger for Nginx but the overhead is relatively small.

这篇关于Rails：是否适合生产部署？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！