Hydra David
unread,Sep 13, 2008, 3:45:09 PM9/13/08Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Envycasts Discussion
Now, now, disbelievers. Scaling _efficiently_ and just scaling at all
are two separate things. Rails scales very well... Horizontally. That
is, the more Mongrels (or whatever container you're using) you can
turn on, the more instances you can serve, and this is not a malady
particular to Rails, either. Some of you may be familiar with the
concept of Java "applets", which are small, coherent applications that
run under a master application environment, called Tomcat, that
suffers from a similar affliction. Once a Tomcat container fills up,
you need another Tomcat container in order to add more applets. How do
_they_ handle scaling, I'd like to ask, and how can that be applied to
Rails?
The main reason that Rails is derided as "non-scaling" is that it
doesn't do so as efficiently as other frameworks, which can rely upon
Apache for memory management instead, which makes them "better" at
scaling automatically, since Apache can do so for them. I'm interested
to see if Gregg and Jason will be benchmarking Apache+mod_rails vs
Mongrels in that screencast or taking another approach altogether.
Should be interesting. :D
Hydra David AKA Da...@OrlandoPHP.org (that's right, the PHP guy)
PS: Much love to my RoR peeps!