[Rails] Re: Re: Frustrated with RoR environment splintering

[Tom Mornini]

On Mar 31, 2006, at 3:41 PM, Seth Brundle wrote:

>> Seems a shame to use a very large (relatively) mod_perl instance  
>> to feed
>> a slow client connection. Particularly so if the request is entirely
>> static and requires no mod_perl usage.
>
> LOL Tom, if  your website serves 70 Mbps of dynamic content over 4  
> linux
> servers and RADs easily and is rock stable and serves *dynamic*  
> pages in
> .3s for 3 years, there is no 'shame' to be had.

Sigh.

I didn't say the performance was shameful, I said it's a shame to be
wasteful.

> This is what is called 'a successful scalable solution'.

4 boxes? How scalable is that?

Look, you're getting performance that works for you, and I'm happy for
you. I *love* mod_perl, but it IS A SHAME to use a mod_perl process
to handle static and SSL content.

> When I worked for Yahoo!, we were 'real efficient' - we developed most
> dynamic content in Apache C modules!
> Oh the memory we saved!!!
>
> Mondays were especially fun. You spent 4.5 hours compiling the  
> production
> codebase (whether YOUR site was affected by others changes or not),  
> checking
> every so often for the inevitable error, checking CVS for the  
> module author,
> walking to his cube (hoping to god he was there), getting an 'oh  
> yeah you
> gotta blahblahblsa..', implementing blahblahblah, resume compile,  
> and then
> RESTARTING all your webservers on 4 continents (because you cant  
> update C
> modules without a restart!) Then go home and hope to get real work  
> done on
> monday.
>
> Oh but the memory we saved!!
>
> Guess what? Yahoo! uses PHP now ;)

This is so completely irrelevant, I just don't know how respond.

You're speaking of programmer productivity -vs- runtime efficiency,
where I'm speaking about something that can radically improve
scalability with your existing code base.

-- 
-- Tom Mornini