Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ruby"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Jadeforrest (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* What would be the point? Rails already includes a Ruby-based HTTP listener that's closely integrated with Rails. You would get no performance benefit from putting AOLserver in front of Rails, as Rails is all single-threaded so requests get processed in serial, as I understand it. If you wanted to accelerate a Rails app, I'd front it with a load balancing switch and run a bunch of Rails listeners. But, that'd mean Rails couldn't keep in-memory state information unless you want to run the switch in sticky-session mode, which is lame. ''-- [[User:Dossy|Dossy]] 07:50, 10 December 2005 (EST)'' | * What would be the point? Rails already includes a Ruby-based HTTP listener that's closely integrated with Rails. You would get no performance benefit from putting AOLserver in front of Rails, as Rails is all single-threaded so requests get processed in serial, as I understand it. If you wanted to accelerate a Rails app, I'd front it with a load balancing switch and run a bunch of Rails listeners. But, that'd mean Rails couldn't keep in-memory state information unless you want to run the switch in sticky-session mode, which is lame. ''-- [[User:Dossy|Dossy]] 07:50, 10 December 2005 (EST)'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Dossy is correct here, as far as I understand. It's amazing how long it has taken for other web servers to begin to approach Aolserver, and even now, the hottest thing around (Rails) faces such terrible scalability issues. The problem is most people won't notice until their web site really blows up -- [[User:Jadeforrest|Jadeforrest]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Ruby on Aolserver? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes, but Ruby on Aolserver would absolutely ROCK! | ||
Latest revision as of 16:48, 12 December 2007
Ruby on Rails on AOLserver?
Any thoughts or ideas on whether Ruby on Rails would work with the nsruby module? --Caveman 10:28, 9 December 2005 (EST)
- What would be the point? Rails already includes a Ruby-based HTTP listener that's closely integrated with Rails. You would get no performance benefit from putting AOLserver in front of Rails, as Rails is all single-threaded so requests get processed in serial, as I understand it. If you wanted to accelerate a Rails app, I'd front it with a load balancing switch and run a bunch of Rails listeners. But, that'd mean Rails couldn't keep in-memory state information unless you want to run the switch in sticky-session mode, which is lame. -- Dossy 07:50, 10 December 2005 (EST)
- Dossy is correct here, as far as I understand. It's amazing how long it has taken for other web servers to begin to approach Aolserver, and even now, the hottest thing around (Rails) faces such terrible scalability issues. The problem is most people won't notice until their web site really blows up -- Jadeforrest
Ruby on Aolserver?
Yes, but Ruby on Aolserver would absolutely ROCK!
