By bloid
via shanti.railsblog.com
Published: Jan 07 2008 / 19:09
Using common sense techniques (fragment caching, avoiding the database whenever possible, etc), we were able to comfortably scale a Ruby on Rails application to over 550k pageviews over the course of 24 hours, at the monthly cost of just $370.
Comments
FlySwat replied ago:
The page linked on Digg/Reddit etc was a relatively static page.
It doesn't speak much for Rails capacity.
Jeremy Weiskotten replied ago:
How do you know what parts of the page are static?
antych replied ago:
So Ruby have finally caught up with PHP? Congratulations.
cossins replied ago:
antych: No, Ruby has not 'caught up' with PHP. Nor does it need to.
Rails and Ruby are not the same thing, as PHP and any framework are not the same thing. Serving pages from an application written with a framework in PHP has very comparable performance to Ruby on Rails, and yes, you need page caching in any case.
- Simon
,
antych replied ago:
Don't be silly, I said "Ruby" because otherwise you would complain that I cannot compare Rails with PHP because it's not a language and there is just too many PHP frameworks to count. The point was clear, PHP has a proved record of scaling well with frameworks or not. It's good to see that Rails if finally getting there.
Jeremy Weiskotten replied ago:
Rails has been there for a while (if you know what you're doing). People just believe all the FUD.
Voters For This Link (11)
Voters Against This Link (6)