Backgroundjob scalability vs starling


I am currently reviewing backgroundjob and starling as alternatives to
handling background processing. We would like to architect the system
to be scalable. Starling it would seem was designed with scalability
in mind, but is more complicated than backgroundjob.

Backgroundjob, from the readme, allows only one worker per hostname,
which according to the readme does not affect throughput. It seems
significantly simpler to use so I would prefer backgroundjob but I am
worried about future scalability.

Does anyone have experience with backgroundjob and scalability?


Why dont you try the well-known plugin Backgroundrb for handling
multiple workers?

After you checkout the plugin svn co

You need to just follow the examples folder… Those examples are
pretty easy to understand.

Thats it ! All set to go…


Hi Kiran, thanks for the reply.

I am not keen on using backgrounrdrb. I used it in the past and it was
a bit of a PITA. I believe that most people suggest backgroundjob
above bdrb. My concern is mainly wether backgroundjob will scale as
well as starling or if not, how well it will scale.