Comments on: Disabled mod_passenger on a number of domains

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:12:44 +0000

Yeah, I’m looking for a Rails Hosting… But I’m in a rush… My App is too Rails 2.1 intensive

By: MattRock

MattRock — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:04:59 +0000

Note two things:
1. This also breaks symbolic links if you are using them in the filesystem.
2. The note does not clearly state where to turn this back on. This article labels the issue as “mod_passenger” where the checkbox option in panel is labeled as “mod_rails.”
Even if you are not using rails but you are using symbolic links, you will need to enable the “Ruby On Rails” option in hosting setup.

Documentation has got to be clean…

By: brodock

brodock — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:41:36 +0000

+1 for Rails 2.1 too…
MOST WANTED!

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:49:28 +0000

+1 for Rails 2.1

By: Anthony

Anthony — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:56:10 +0000

+1 for Rails 2.1 (asap please). Also will you be enabling Ruby Enterprise for Passenger?

Thanks.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:22:49 +0000

@Brian,

I am about to deploy mod_passenger to a number of VPS machines. Could you clarify “While dealing with some issues with mod_passenger over the last few days”? (Offline if necessary.) Was it just that the misconfiguration was causing problems or are there issues with mod_passenger in production? I appreciate your feedback.

Thanks!

By: Nyhm

Nyhm — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:57:57 +0000

@Jay - Yes, I totally agree with what you’ve said. DreamHost’s openness and technical competence is probably 75% of why I’m here.

By: Jay

Jay — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:41:49 +0000

@Nyhm - but with some situations, giving technical details may scare non-technical users. While it will help us tech-savvy people, the non-techs will be lost, and sometimes scared at the big words. The way they ‘dumb it down’ and keep it simple, allows both non-technical and technical users to understand it more easily, even if a few details are kept out.

If the issue does not affect you, theres no need to ask questions; however, when it does, that’s when you ask. DreamHost is one of the very few companies to be so open about their status, most hosting companies would not tell you about any of this.

By: Nyhm

Nyhm — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:40:56 +0000

@Brian - Thank you for the clarification. I see now that this was indeed an emergency procedure, and thank you for taking quick action.

@brasscrest - Very good point. DreamHost’s open, detailed, technical feedback is a primary reason I’m a customer. Don’t be shy about explaining the hosting side of the problem.

Overall, this situation is just a gap in communications, which could be improved on both sides. I shouldn’t be so quick to frustration, and should assume DreamHost did what they had to do. DreamHost can be sure to give us tech-savvy geek-types the details we need to understand the situation.

By: brasscrest

brasscrest — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:07:37 +0000

@Brian -

“domains that didn’t have this configured properly were causing apache web servers to crash unexpectedly”

If you had stated that in the announcement, you would have less complaints. The announcement reads like you’re just trying to do a little cleanup, not fix an actual issue that may be affecting others who aren’t even using Rails.

Thanks for taking quick action to prevent more of us from having downtime due to some people who aren’t aware how to properly configure their domains.