hi, do you think is it a lot 0.4 sec (with rendering, db and other stuff) to load a page for a page that will be viewed a lot of time with a lot of requests/seconds ? (caching is not possible in this page :() -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
david wrote:> hi, do you think is it a lot 0.4 sec (with rendering, db and other > stuff) to load a page for a page that will be viewed a lot of time with > a lot of requests/seconds ? (caching is not possible in this page :()anyone? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
david wrote:> david wrote: > >> hi, do you think is it a lot 0.4 sec (with rendering, db and other >> stuff) to load a page for a page that will be viewed a lot of time with >> a lot of requests/seconds ? (caching is not possible in this page :() >> > > anyone? > >Depends... on how many visitors you''re expecting. On what you''re deploying on. On environment. Etc. Think we''ll need a bit more info to make any intelligent comments (or unintelligent ones for that matter)... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Chris T wrote:> david wrote: >> david wrote: >> >>> hi, do you think is it a lot 0.4 sec (with rendering, db and other >>> stuff) to load a page for a page that will be viewed a lot of time with >>> a lot of requests/seconds ? (caching is not possible in this page :() >>> >> >> anyone? >> >> > Depends... on how many visitors you''re expecting. On what you''re > deploying on. On environment. Etc. Think we''ll need a bit more info to > make any intelligent comments (or unintelligent ones for that matter)...actually i''m expecting about 1000/1500 visitors at the same time about the host i''m thinking about a hosting (like dreamhost) or a vps...do you think that a hosting can handle it? the apps is something like google news, so a lot of news, categories and, i hope, visitors :) -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
david wrote:> Chris T wrote: > >> david wrote: >> >>> david wrote: >>> >>> >>>> hi, do you think is it a lot 0.4 sec (with rendering, db and other >>>> stuff) to load a page for a page that will be viewed a lot of time with >>>> a lot of requests/seconds ? (caching is not possible in this page :() >>>> >>>> >>> anyone? >>> >>> >>> >> Depends... on how many visitors you''re expecting. On what you''re >> deploying on. On environment. Etc. Think we''ll need a bit more info to >> make any intelligent comments (or unintelligent ones for that matter)... >> > > actually i''m expecting about 1000/1500 visitors at the same time > about the host i''m thinking about a hosting (like dreamhost) or a > vps...do you think that a hosting can handle it? > the apps is something like google news, so a lot of news, categories > and, i hope, visitors :) > >I''m by no means an expert on this -- quite the opposite in fact, just in the middle of deploying my first full-scale app, and getting to grips with all that entails (fairly heavy duty Linux sys admin stuff), but I would say that you need to rethink how you''re doing things. Does 1,000 at the same time really mean "at the same time", which, if they stayed on the site for 10 minutes each would imply something like 60,000 an hour, 1.5million a day. Can''t see how that''s going to happen on a VPS. Prob not even on a single dedicated host. Also, I would suspect that even something like Google News does make heavy use of caching, whether it''s of the data, or the rendered html. Finally, what''s the 0.4 sec based on -- what machine is it running on, what environment, under what loads. How much of that is db access, how much rendering, and so on. Even if each page took 0.8 sec to produce, that wouldn''t be a problem as long as you had sufficient (by which I mean a helluva lot) of backend mongrels dealing with that. In reality, I would suspect that through fragment caching, you could probably get that right down (and you would prob need to). As I said I''m still getting to grips with deployment myself, but if I had to give an answer it would be that you need to rethink things somewhat. Hope this helps Chris --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Chris T wrote:> I''m by no means an expert on this -- quite the opposite in fact, just in > the middle of deploying my first full-scale app, and getting to grips > with all that entails (fairly heavy duty Linux sys admin stuff), but I > would say that you need to rethink how you''re doing things. Does 1,000 > at the same time really mean "at the same time", which, if they stayed > on the site for 10 minutes each would imply something like 60,000 an > hour, 1.5million a day. Can''t see how that''s going to happen on a VPS. > Prob not even on a single dedicated host. Also, I would suspect that > even something like Google News does make heavy use of caching, whether > it''s of the data, or the rendered html. > > Finally, what''s the 0.4 sec based on -- what machine is it running on, > what environment, under what loads. How much of that is db access, how > much rendering, and so on. Even if each page took 0.8 sec to produce, > that wouldn''t be a problem as long as you had sufficient (by which I > mean a helluva lot) of backend mongrels dealing with that. In reality, I > would suspect that through fragment caching, you could probably get that > right down (and you would prob need to). > > As I said I''m still getting to grips with deployment myself, but if I > had to give an answer it would be that you need to rethink things > somewhat.The problem with caching is that is something based on real time, just an example, there is something now, but if you refresh the page after 1 minute maybe there isn''t anymore because it''s show based on time.now... is it possible a cache in this case? i think that with a cache will be shown something that wouldn''t be shown, isn''t it ? the 0.4 sec is based on the development environment on a 1.4 ghz and 512 mb ram, with just one user(me), the db access is about 3-4 queries + ferret -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
david wrote:> Chris T wrote: > >> I''m by no means an expert on this -- quite the opposite in fact, just in >> the middle of deploying my first full-scale app, and getting to grips >> with all that entails (fairly heavy duty Linux sys admin stuff), but I >> would say that you need to rethink how you''re doing things. Does 1,000 >> at the same time really mean "at the same time", which, if they stayed >> on the site for 10 minutes each would imply something like 60,000 an >> hour, 1.5million a day. Can''t see how that''s going to happen on a VPS. >> Prob not even on a single dedicated host. Also, I would suspect that >> even something like Google News does make heavy use of caching, whether >> it''s of the data, or the rendered html. >> >> Finally, what''s the 0.4 sec based on -- what machine is it running on, >> what environment, under what loads. How much of that is db access, how >> much rendering, and so on. Even if each page took 0.8 sec to produce, >> that wouldn''t be a problem as long as you had sufficient (by which I >> mean a helluva lot) of backend mongrels dealing with that. In reality, I >> would suspect that through fragment caching, you could probably get that >> right down (and you would prob need to). >> >> As I said I''m still getting to grips with deployment myself, but if I >> had to give an answer it would be that you need to rethink things >> somewhat. >> > > > The problem with caching is that is something based on real time, just > an example, there is something now, but if you refresh the page after 1 > minute maybe there isn''t anymore because it''s show based on time.now... > is it possible a cache in this case? i think that with a cache will be > shown something that wouldn''t be shown, isn''t it ? > the 0.4 sec is based on the development environment on a 1.4 ghz and 512 > mb ram, with just one user(me), the db access is about 3-4 queries + > ferret > >With the development environment, rails is reloading everything on each request. You can''t compare requests per second on development with production. Also, when you say real time does it really need to be real time (e.g. IM, and conversations), or google news (which is probably updated every five minutes (at least on the user specific stuff, and the common stuff I would be guess may be updated every 30 seconds, but would be shared with thousands of users). Have a good read of the agile book, investigate fragment caching, and think about what the users need and when they need it. Cheers Chris --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Chris T wrote:> With the development environment, rails is reloading everything on each > request. You can''t compare requests per second on development with > production. Also, when you say real time does it really need to be real > time (e.g. IM, and conversations), or google news (which is probably > updated every five minutes (at least on the user specific stuff, and the > common stuff I would be guess may be updated every 30 seconds, but would > be shared with thousands of users). Have a good read of the agile book, > investigate fragment caching, and think about what the users need and > when they need it.i''ll try in the production enviroment... :) it''s more like IM real time than google news which can be updated every 30 seconds.. i think that in an IM apps you can''t cache anything, is it right? Ok, i''ll look the book :) thanks -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---