Hi James, Is there any benchmark to support your statement that Java webapp is faster than Rails? I kind a feel that Java webapp is still slow compared to its counterpart [i.e LinkedIn vs Twitter].
Cheers, Joshua. On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:32 AM, James Sadler <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Joshua Partogi <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en. > > -- http://twitter.com/scrum8 -- 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
