Topic: Best configuration if must use Windows server

Would prefer a Unix server, but have to use a Windows 2003 Server for an upcoming ROR application.  We are early in the process and want to take our best shot at an architecture that will be as scalable as possible.

I look at the Apache 2.0, mod_proxy_balancer, and Mongrel configuration and that is what I want but again not an option on this project.

Looking for opinions on Windows Server 2003 configurations that would be best or as close to the above as one can get.  Any information from someone who has implemented something in production on a Windows Server would also be welcome.

Re: Best configuration if must use Windows server

http://www.vmware.com/products/server/ - I'm only half joking. For a lower traffic application or a testing environment it'll be fine. For a project that is "early in the process" a VM may be a good option. You can easily shovel the VM on to bigger hardware or on to multiple servers (for mongrel clusters) with nearly no effort.

http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2006/5/11 … ws-servers also has some options.

Re: Best configuration if must use Windows server

Okay, why do you have to use Windows Server? It's really a HORRIBLE choice, and I doubt it's even practical for a long-term solution.

http://danielfischer.com - Personal Web-Technology-Blog, Los Angeles.

Re: Best configuration if must use Windows server

As a consultant/contractor, sometimes you don't have an option to select the operating system but are subject to a company's pre-determined standards. Your choices narrow to working within the constraints of the customer, not using ROR, Apache, Mongrel, etc. as a solution, or not doing the work.  You advise the customer as best you can but they are paying for the solution and it is their choice, not mine.

Re: Best configuration if must use Windows server

Windows is fine for hosting generally, contrary to what people may tell you. Not that I don't prefer Unix/Linux, but honestly I've been pretty impressed with server 2003 performance. However, that being said, I don't know much about how Rails would perform on it. My guess is not very well. I do know that Apache is pretty stable and performs pretty well on Windows. But ruby, mongrel, etc.. I couldn't tell you. But knowing Apache works fine, I would use that as the starting point rather than trying to get rails running on IIS.

Last edited by heyaz (2007-12-22 16:40:06)