Activity Graph

Page 1 of 1


[20:25:50] mtsmith85: Hi Folks. Hope this is the best room for this questions. I???m building an application with a series of workers taking jobs from a queue, separate from our main Rails app. I???ve been googling solutions for daemonizing the small ruby ???scripts??? (for lack of a better term), and are curious about best practices. Does anyone have suggestions for this? (We???ve looked at some gems and Process.daemon).
[20:26:51] mtsmith85: Nilium: I???d like to keep it away from rails ??? it???s just chucking data around, effectively.
[20:27:05] mtsmith85: (don???t want to add the overhead of everything else)
[20:28:12] mtsmith85: Nilium: Nope. But, it???s a new area for me and google was turning up a lot of various results. I was curious if there were some suggested best practices. But Process.dameon should be perfectly fine.
[20:29:01] mtsmith85: Great. I appreciate that, Nilium. Sometimes all you need is a ???you???re not crazy or on the wrong path??? :-)
[20:29:37] mtsmith85: Ha. Well, I???ll still take it. Thanks!
[20:30:45] mtsmith85: @RubyPanther sorry, when you say ???there???????
[20:32:44] mtsmith85: RubyPanther: Gotcha. Sorry, I misunderstood for a moment. So yep, that???s what we???re talking about. Maybe writing each worker as a small gem and having it daemonized.
[20:34:42] mtsmith85: Hi All ??? I???m curious about separating our workers from our main rails application. Been thinking about creating separate gems or little ruby script daemons for the workers separate from our Rails app. Does anyone mind sharing their thoughts on this being a bad idea or if there is virtue in spinning them out of the rails app?
[20:35:46] mtsmith85: To clarify, RubyPanther, we???re not building the queue itself. Just the workers that will grab messages from the queue (SQS in this sense)
[20:38:38] mtsmith85: tubbo: We???re bringing in a approx 25 to 30k content items a day. They???re chucked in a queue (SQS). I want to have the backround workers (which are in a separate service environment from the main rails app), processing those content items (parsing and sending into different DBs). I was thinking that separating them from the rails app would allow those workers to be leaner.
[20:39:13] mtsmith85: RubyPanther: Yes, we???re using SQS. Just wondering about the best way to build the workers themselves. Daemonizing? Gem?
[21:51:15] mtsmith85: RubyPanther: Sorry, i was AFK before. Thanks for the last few messaages. Very Helpful!


[19:27:51] mtsmith85: Hi There - I'm wondering if I could bounce a Rails architecture question off of someone. I'm running into a bit of a wall and I'm wondering if I just need to keep working at it or if I'm going at it all wrong ??? It has to do with subdomain constraints and scoping modules to create, effectively, a multi-tenant site. Thanks!


[20:52:02] mtsmith85: Hey there -- I'm looking for, hopefully, an ingenious solution for clearing page cache for one application on multiple application servers. Anyone have any great ideas?
[20:54:04] mtsmith85: wmoxam_: if wishing made it so! :-p I'm probably 3 days out from switching from a page cache to a memcached solution, but was just making sure no one had a better solution. this sight is simple enough that a page cache actually would be great.
[20:55:47] mtsmith85: but storing literally the whole page as HTML files (as the site has no dynamic content)
[20:55:57] mtsmith85: (it's a scaling DREAM!)
[20:57:02] mtsmith85: wmoxam_: yep; a button gets clicked, that removes a bunch of specific files in the public folder
[20:58:35] mtsmith85: wmoxam_: hmm that's interesting. a kind of "api" trigger for a task
[21:00:00] mtsmith85: wmoxam_: it's ridiculous, this relatively high profile site, is ridiculously simple; so i'm looking at doing it with memcached, but then i lose the pleasure of the page cache and straight serving of HTML files.
[21:00:00] mtsmith85: wmoxam_: yeah I agree with you on that
[21:03:38] mtsmith85: wmoxam_: that's probably a better answer -- inherited setup (obviously); we're a bit away from a restructuring, though, unfortunately. maybe soon.
[21:04:39] mtsmith85: thanks for the help wmoxam_