From: Carl Lerche <carl.lerche@...>
Date: 2006-09-12T11:30:59+09:00
Subject: Re: The economics of a slow but productive Ruby

I realize that you are using the numbers from Joel's article, but  
(and maybe it's just me), those numbers are just so absurd, they  
don't merit any more discussion than "that's absurd" and maybe point  
out why using real world situations.

Also, yes, there are some extreme cases... such as the google search  
engine. However, scaling is not linear. Hypothetically, IF at a  
certain point a .NET web-application takes 5 servers and a similar  
ruby web-application takes 25 servers (this already sounds a bit  
ridiculous, but allow me to continue...). This does NOT mean that  
when this .NET application requires 50 servers to run that the  
similar ruby web-app will require 250.

As such, I don't see where this line would be, not using your method  
of proving that there is a line.

And lastly, if there are any developers that develop Ruby apps for a  
company that requires 5 times as many servers as an equivalent .NET  
app.. they should be fired :P

-carl

On Sep 11, 2006, at 6:21 PM, Jacob Fugal wrote:

> On 9/11/06, Carl Lerche <carl.lerche@verizon.net> wrote:
>> 1) It doesn't take 5 times more boxes for a ruby app than a .NET app,
>> the single biggest factor in efficiency is the quality of the
>> developer. You can do many things on the code level to optimize
>> server CPU. I've never found it to be an issue. Honestly, if you need
>> 5 times more servers to run a ruby on rails app than a .NET app, I'll
>> have to laugh.
>
> I agree, but I was using the numbers from Joel's article. See my
> follow up email for a little more detail on what I believe it would
> *really* be...
>
> My *main* point in the original email is that there *is* a line where
> throwing more servers at it isn't economical. Where that line is
> depends a great deal on your individual situation.
>
> Jacob Fugal
>