On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Ropu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > tens of millions? > ;)
Again, this all depends on what you're doing and your personal infrastructure choices. Yahoo and facebook certainly get by just fine with traffic several orders of magnitude higher than that on CGI-based (PHP) frontends. PHP scales just fine, it just scales differently by encouraging a pound smart, penny foolish programming model that emphasises horizontal scalability over absolute efficiency (this is true for all CGI based systems, so the same can be said of most perl, python, or ruby deployments as well). Both approaches are valid ways to achieve the goal. > > > > 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 >
