And compared to PHP? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>>>>> "P?l" == P?l Bergstr?m <pal@palbergstrom.com> writes:> And compared to PHP?See section 22.7 "Case Studies" in the "Agile Web Development with Rails" book. -- Calle Dybedahl <calle@cyberpomo.com> http://www.livejournal.com/users/cdybedahl/ "All printers are unreliable contraptions from the depths of hell sent to torture sysadmins." -- Russ Allbery
Calle Dybedahl wrote:>>>>>> "P?l" == P?l Bergstr?m <pal@palbergstrom.com> writes: > >> And compared to PHP? > > See section 22.7 "Case Studies" in the "Agile Web Development with > Rails" book. > -- > Calle Dybedahl <calle@cyberpomo.com> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/cdybedahl/ > "All printers are unreliable contraptions from the depths of hell sent > to > torture sysadmins." -- Russ AllberyCouldn''t find that, not in the second edition. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>>>>> "P?l" == P?l Bergstr?m <pal@palbergstrom.com> writes:> Couldn''t find that, not in the second edition.They took it out? Hm. The answer is "yes". Since Rails invites a share-nothing architecture, it is very easy to scale horizontally with increasing load. The v1 book describes a case of a Rails installation spread over ten servers and handling about 300 requests per second of hard-to-cache real-life traffic. -- Calle Dybedahl <calle@cyberpomo.com> http://www.livejournal.com/users/cdybedahl/ "Let me answer that question with a headbutt." -- Buffy, Buffy the Vampire Slayer
> >> Couldn''t find that, not in the second edition. > > They took it out? Hm. > > The answer is "yes". Since Rails invites a share-nothing architecture, > it is very easy to scale horizontally with increasing load. The v1 > book describes a case of a Rails installation spread over ten servers > and handling about 300 requests per second of hard-to-cache real-life > traffic.This is also an interesting read.... http://poocs.net/articles/2006/03/13/the-adventures-of-scaling-stage-1