Stefan de Konink wrote: > Tom Hughes wrote: >> Yeah, it really is that simple, which is why us simple minded idiots >> that run the server are still doing it all in memory. > > There are at least 3 known alternative implementations that run > semi-realtime :) So yeah keeping it in rails while there are > alternatives make you stubborn. Your last arguments were that you don't > want to manage such infrastructure... that makes much more sense here.
This is only partly about rails. Even if you take rails out of the equation you still need to keep substantial amount of data in memory in order to know which objects to fetch. The alternative is do much more complicated database queries which are likely to be slower (impossibly so on mysql, but possibly manageable with a different database). > Don't forget our last IRC conversation where you were unable to tell me > why a specific FCGI client was borking on any request (get/put). While a > new request just worked. This indicates there are more problems with > Ruby-on-Rails read/write actions than you are now talking about now. I'm not aware of having spoken to you on IRC to be honest. If I'd known it was you I probably wouldn't have entered into the conversation. If it is the conversation I think it is then I didn't say I didn't know why it was breaking - there are a number of reasons why that happens some of which I understand and some of which I don't. What I said was that I had no way to tell which daemon was causing the problem. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([email protected]) http://www.compton.nu/ _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
