3 ms·
I hear ya. It's rails running (with its database) on a single small VPS, so I'm pretty pleased with how it's running, particularly given the load yesterday. An
by whalabi 8y ago
I hear ya. It's rails running (with its database) on a single small VPS, so I'm pretty pleased with how it's running, particularly given the load yesterday.
And thanks for sort of fact checking, for a second I thought whoa, that could be it, all on the server side.
Don't think it is though. I might set up some performance testing on a local copy to check the difference between the two just to be sure (especially because the article ended up getting a lot of attention.)
That's some pretty badass shell scripting, I'll give it a try in a bit.
- jefftk 8y agoIf you put varnish or something in front of rails to cache your responses you could probably cut 400-600ms off your loading time.