3 ms·
> I could have used only one server if I'd used Java or Clojure? Hmmm... Use Clojure, but keep in mind that if you're not caching aggressively you can saturate
by coolsunglasses 14y ago
> I could have used only one server if I'd used Java or Clojure? Hmmm...
Use Clojure, but keep in mind that if you're not caching aggressively you can saturate persistence-side quickly - making your choice of application language irrelevant.
- spullara 14y agoSadly that isn't very true anymore. Databases (and I/O — think SSD) really are faster than most of the dynamic languages these days.
- coolsunglasses 14y agoThat's a pretty nonsense sentiment. How can a database be "faster" than a language?
- spullara 14y agoFor example, going to the database and retrieving the data uses less CPU and time than deserializing the data into an object into Ruby. That is the sense I am talking about. The bottleneck becomes the code talking to the database rather than the database itself.
- coolsunglasses 14y agoThat's...that's not how it works. I was talking about the scalability of the database as that's a brick wall you hit long before anything else. You can always fire up more rails workers, scaling persistence is a PITA. Are you intentionally misunderstanding me in order to make a strange and irrelevant point?
- spullara 14y agoI'm not making a pure scalability argument. Your solution of scaling the rails tier still suffers from far higher latency thus making choice of language/VM relevant. Rails is very, very slow — even if you cache everything behind it. So yes, you can scale it up, but it is at least 10x more expensive to do so.