3 ms·
This is certainly good news for beginners, but for serious scaling, rails itself is almost never the problem. The way this test was done was by making postgres
by irrelative 18y ago
This is certainly good news for beginners, but for serious scaling, rails itself is almost never the problem.
The way this test was done was by making postgres sleep between requests -- in reality, postgres would become the bottleneck fairly quickly.
Not trying to rain on anyone's parade though -- it's great news for the small to medium sized rails-powered site.
- jwilliams 18y agoYeah... Also, my natural instinct when I saw the article was to think "scale and performance aren't the same thing". Not saying this isn't a good thing in itself, but scale means a lot of other things.
- anotherjesse 18y agoEven for large sites this (combined with other rails/ruby improvements) is a huge gain. Because each rails app server can only handle a single request at a time, you have to spawn more and more instances of rails. Each of these instances consume 50-200MB of ram. Being able to have a single app server per server means I can stop spending so much on ram (or use it for other purposes). So at a large scale, this will be a large impact because it will reduce the number of mongrels/thins/... you have to run.
- irrelative 18y agoThat's correct. My understanding is (having never been there myself) that if you're running a large site, you're going to have to throw hardware at a scaling problem -- that said, if just hardware solves your problem, you're in great shape.
- vegai 18y ago>This is certainly good news for beginners, but for serious scaling, rails itself is almost never the problem. I wish this myth would just die. Just because David Hansson and nearly every other person in the Rails community keeps saying and saying that, it does not make it true.