4 ms·
* 1 million requests an hour isn't that many.* What percentage of websites serve 1 mil or more requests per hour, .01%? .001%? Meaning Rails is going to be per
by WillPostForFood 9y ago
* 1 million requests an hour isn't that many.*
What percentage of websites serve 1 mil or more requests per hour, .01%? .001%? Meaning Rails is going to be performant enough for 99.9+% of projects, and for those projects it would have been a mistake to trade dev time for performance you’ll never need.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- phamilton 9y ago1M request per hour at peak? A SPA backed by rails is probably going to make at least 10 requests on page load. So in terms of actual traffic, 100k page loads during a peak hour. Assume a roughly linear peak increase/decrease and we've got roughly 1M page loads per day. 30M page loads per month. How many websites have 30M (non-unique) page loads per month? After some rough scouting on Alexa ranks, I'd put the over-under at probably 10k US sites, and 50k worldwide. Assuming Alexa has 50M sites, then 0.1% of publicly facing sites serve that much traffic. Rails is used often on private, internal sites and tooling. Those sites wouldn't come up. That would definitely skew the 0.1% number. Not making a huge argument here, I just started down that analysis path out of curiosity and figured I'd share it.
- WillPostForFood 9y agoGreat analysis! According to Netcraft, there are > 600million websites, so assuming Alexa ignores the 550 million with near zero traffic, you can get to the .01% pretty easily. Another area I'd tweak is the skew towards SPAs. Most sites aren't SPAs, especially as you slide down the traffic rankings.
- phamilton 9y agoYeah, the skew towards SPA is more Rails focused. I haven't worked on a non SPA Rails app in over 5 years. P(SPA | Rails) is higher than P(SPA).