tens of millions? ;)
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Ropu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for *very-large-scale* > > sites > > > You don't need java for very large sites. PHP scales extremely well > horizontally (add more machines). The real bottleneck with PHP is the > number > of simultaneous requests you can do. You can get much better performance > using lighthttpd instead of apache httpd, but you trade performance for > flexibility. > > Of course, this depends on what "large scale" means to you. If you can > overhwhelm your available bandwidth on a single machine anyway, it doesn't > matter what you use. > > > > > > ;) ;) > > > > ropu > > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > thanks for the replies. > > > for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big > > > so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :) > > > regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some > > > sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be > > > fun to code..) > > > > > > thanks > > > leo > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi all, > > > >> as far as I'm reading, > > > >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready > > > perspective. > > > >> am I wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your > > > current > > > > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything > CGI-like) > > > > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using > Java, > > > go > > > > with the Java version. There are some different performance > > > characteristics > > > > of each, but those are language differences more than anything else. > > > > > > > > > > > >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty? > > > > > > > > > > > > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it because > > it > > > > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage > of > > a > > > > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage > caja > > > by > > > > using a web service of some sort. > > > > > > > > > > > >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?) > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" vs. > > > "cgi" > > > > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous requests > > than > > > > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it > also > > > has a > > > > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying the > > PHP > > > > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but you > > > have > > > > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide > > variety > > > of > > > > servlet containers out there. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> what about other implementations? > > > >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks to all > > > >> leonardo > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > .-. --- .--. ..- > > R o p u > > > -- .-. --- .--. ..- R o p u
