3 ms·
> Rails is holding up admirably. ... except that you have to spin up more boxes. I think you have a different definition of "admirably" than most of us :-) F
by incepted 11y ago
> Rails is holding up admirably.
... except that you have to spin up more boxes.
I think you have a different definition of "admirably" than most of us :-)
Follow Twitter's lead and switch to a JVM-based solution when you get a chance, you'll be shocked.
- jcrites 11y agoI'm a fan of the JVM, but it doesn't remove the need to be prepared to scale up by adding more machines. That said, it's great at concurrency, so it's easier to harness the full capability of a machine than with other platforms. Even if I didn't need multiple machines for throughput I'd probably still want them for redundancy (redundancy of machine hardware as well as redundancy across availability zones). (Note: didn't vote on your post)
- patio11 11y agoWe have one Rails box w/ ~2 gigs of RAM which has been sitting pretty since the golang process also on the box stopped hogging 100% of the available file descriptors. Our scaling issue is with ruby processes, of which we have several thousand active at the moment. Each process runs one wee little universe, filled with wee little traders trading wee little stocks, for the benefit of a single player playing a single level. These aren't a JVM language (or Golang, for that matter) out of expediency: I had to write the economic simulation and the trading algorithms and get it done in about ~2 weeks, so I wrote them in my best language, Ruby.
- will_pseudonym 11y agoCurious--is this something with which JRuby could help?