"Rails can't scale" has pretty much just turned into an ironic meme bounded around by the rubinati elite these days hasn't it?
On 20 August 2010 11:32, James Sadler <freshto...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for what Mark said. > > Also, a lot of this 'does Rails scale' crap stems from people > conflating performance and scalability. They think that because Rails > is slow(er), it can't scale but that's a load of crap. Scalability > and performance orthogonal to each other. > > For instance, a Java web app would be faster than the Ruby equivalent > (all other things being equal, such as same database & schema, etc) > and thus it's performance would be higher. > > But both would scale just as well: total cluster performance would be > proportional to the size of your cluster, until you hit some other > bottleneck (such as the database or network capacity). This is just > inherent in HTTP's stateless nature: it scales out well because the > requests are independent of each other. > > (Bonus points for recognising that there's a sweet spot where the > infrastructure savings from using something with more performance, > outweigh the cheaper development costs of using something as snazzy as > Rails. But for 99% of apps we won't need to worry about that because > they'll never get that big) > > > On 20 August 2010 11:13, Mark Wotton <mwot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Joshua Partogi <jpart...@scrum8.com> > wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I often hear people say that rails is not scalable. What does it mean > >> by that exactly? > >> > >> Does it mean that: > >> 1. Rails can not be clustered? > >> 2. Rails can not handle many concurrent users? > >> 3. The code gets messy when the apps gets larger? > >> 4. The performance is not fast? > >> > >> I am still confused by these buzzword that I often hear in many > >> forums. So what are they actually referring when they say rails is not > >> scalable? > > > > There are a few application domains where Rails isn't really > > appropriate, like chat servers where clients hold connections open > > over a long time. If you look at those systems, obviously something > > like Node.js is going to have a large advantage. > > > > and yes, Ruby is pretty slow as interpreters go, but if you're > > building a website that's going to get high load and you're not > > already thinking about caching, you're pretty much screwed anyway. In > > that use case, Rails is just a convenient way of populating the cache. > > > > mark > > > > > > -- > > A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent of a > > black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets surrounding a > > quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like Heinlein or Dr. Who. > > -- Chris Maeda > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. > > To post to this group, send email to rails-ocea...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rails-oceania+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<rails-oceania%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en. > > > > > > > > -- > James > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. > To post to this group, send email to rails-ocea...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rails-oceania+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<rails-oceania%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to rails-ocea...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rails-oceania+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
