Comments on: A brief update with some numbers for hardware load-balanced mongrels http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/ Joyent's Weblog Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:02:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Why EC2 isn’t yet a platform for "normal" web applications « Joyeur http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-4551 Fri, 22 Apr 2011 05:19:24 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-4551 [...] a difference in the horizontal scalability for how many rails processes you can hit in the backend (previous joyeur). The limit is typically <1000 req/second and not that many mongrels, so it’s pretty easy [...]

]]> By: Latest on Rails Performance « Mission Data Blog http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-4493 Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:16:55 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-4493 [...] about the benchmarks that much because you can find ways to make anything fast as shown with Rails doing 4000 requests a second. Tagged: rails rails performance test [...]

]]> By: Alistair http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1514 Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:55:21 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1514 Jason,

Out of interest, did you look into the Citrix Netscaler at all?

We run them at work in front of our web server and Citrix application clusters with superb results.

Al.

]]> By: Jason Hoffman http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1518 Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:55:16 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1518 @ Blake, I don’t think it’s expensive, and there’s not much of a difference in the costs of scaling rails versus php or anything else. Not when compared to what people costs, which is where it begins to get expensive.

]]> By: Blake http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1517 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:06:25 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1517 @Jason

>> “I haven’t really seen a greater cost-outlay relative to say a PHP application.”

I’m sorry for asking this, but I don’t understand.

Are you saying that scaling Ruby on Rails is extremely expensive or inexpensive?

And are you saying that PHP costs more or less to scale than Ruby on Rails.

]]> By: Jason Hoffman http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1516 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 06:40:25 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1516 @ Nathan, I haven’t really seen a greater cost-outlay relative to say a PHP application. It’s a combination of the fact that most computers are more then powerful enough, and that often the bottlenecks are really traffic direction and load-balancing issues (both in front of app and in front of db).

@Dieter Yes more is definitely possible, this is only ~1/10th the switching capacity of a big-ip. As that goes up, then it would be time to attend to the databases.

]]> By: Dieter http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1515 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:08:28 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1515 Yeah, that rocks. 4000 r/s is really a lot. Wondering if there is more possible with the same hardware.

]]> By: Nathan de Vries http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1523 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:46:30 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1523 In your experience, have you found that the cost-outlay involved in scaling Rails applications (more hardware required) is acceptable due to the reduced development costs? And before you say that “hardware is cheap”, obviously “less hardware is cheaper”.

This isn’t a bait, I’m just interested in whether or not you’ve sat back at some stage and said “damn, this requires a hell of a lot of hardware to scale”.

]]> By: Michael Air http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1522 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:20:55 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1522 Why Mongrels? Wouldn’t lighty/fastcgi be faster?

]]> By: Jason Hoffman http://joyeur.com/2007/02/04/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1521 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:26:11 +0000 http://joycomad.joyent.us/blog/uncategorized/a-brief-update-with-some-numbers-for-hardware-load-balanced-mongrels/#comment-1521 Hi Vick, we taped one, it should be coming out.

]]>