Ignoring the engineering of a huge app the answer is simple: one app
always uses fewer resources than the equivalent functionality split up
into many small apps. Mostly you''d just be using less RAM.
Whether or not to separate the functionality into multiple apps would
depend on the nature of the functionality (if you want to have a
single login for instance, than it should probably all be in one app).
The resource usage would be very low on my list of considerations.
On 6/25/07, Jeff Pritchard
<rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
> There has been much discussion here about scaling to host a
"normal" app
> for lots of traffic.
>
> I''m wondering if there are any particular difficulties with
scaling a
> rails app itself up to gargantuan proportions, with just moderate
> traffic.
>
> For instance, a "normal" app does one thing and does it well. It
might
> have one or two or a dozen models, and one or two or a dozen
> controllers.
>
> What happens when you build a truly huge Rails app, with maybe close to
> a hundred models and a hundred controllers and... you get the idea. A
> monster app that most people would say should have been designed as 50
> or 100 separate Rails apps...but you want to run it all on one server,
> with moderate traffic.
>
> Let''s look at it from another perspective. Let''s say
that a particular
> set of hardware was empirically determined to be satisfactory to host an
> ordinary Rails app with say 10,000 "registered users" who each
use it
> casually rather than intensive all-day use by each user. If those same
> users were using a really huge Rails app on the same server, they could
> never use more than one part of the app at a time, so the number of hits
> and pages requested, etc. would be the same regardless of the size of
> the app.
>
> So does the size of the app matter in any material way? Obviously you
> have to have a little more disk space to hold the program and plenty of
> RAM to avoid lots of virtual memory paging...but beyond that, does the
> size of the app matter? Perhaps a large negative effect on caching,
> since there are so many different pages available.
>
> I''m contrasting this to the alternative of making it "look
like" one big
> app by having a large number of separate Rails apps running on the same
> hardware and maybe using sub-domains or something to spread it out. In
> my limited experience, there seems to be a rather large memory hit for
> adding just one more Rails app to a server (in my case, running Lighttpd
> proxied from Apache).
>
> Ignoring for the moment the expected programming burden of maintaining
> one gargantuan Rails app vs. 50 to 100 small Rails apps...would the
> hosting be considerably easier/cheaper with one big app?
>
> thanks,
> jp
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
> >
>
--
Gabe da Silveira
http://darwinweb.net
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---