Forum: Ruby on Rails ROR performance for milions pageviews/month

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
6fd237f6f40f5afca32aca6ea633f58a?d=identicon&s=25 Tom Lobato (Guest)
on 2009-04-14 19:32
(Received via mailing list)
Hi all!

  I`ll rewrite a 10 years old site, written in asp/mysql
(www.motonline.com.br). Now it has one milion page views a month, and
we can hope it grows after rewrite. Well, I know several ror sites,
but have no idea about its access stats. I already use ror for smaller
projects and only need to confirm if ror can satisfy the performance
demands for this.
  Can you comment about the ror performance for such a page view scale
and/or point to some cases or statistics from existing sites?


 Thank you,
 Tom Lobato
3131fcea0a711e5ad89c8d49cc9253b4?d=identicon&s=25 Julian Leviston (Guest)
on 2009-04-14 19:55
(Received via mailing list)
Twitter has more than this, therefore its possible.

Blog: http://random8.zenunit.com/
Learn rails: http://sensei.zenunit.com/
2505b282d57c29be797dc35b245adb4c?d=identicon&s=25 Philip Hallstrom (Guest)
on 2009-04-14 19:55
(Received via mailing list)
>  I`ll rewrite a 10 years old site, written in asp/mysql
> (www.motonline.com.br). Now it has one milion page views a month, and
> we can hope it grows after rewrite. Well, I know several ror sites,
> but have no idea about its access stats. I already use ror for smaller
> projects and only need to confirm if ror can satisfy the performance
> demands for this.
>  Can you comment about the ror performance for such a page view scale
> and/or point to some cases or statistics from existing sites?

Rails can scale to support that.  The problems you'll run into after a
certain point aren't really Rails specific, but will apply to any site
serving that amount of traffic.

Also keep in mind that 1mil views/month spread out evenly is only .38
views a second.  Which isn't much.  Of course traffic is never spread
evenly, but you get my point.

You might want to check out http://railslab.newrelic.com/scaling-rails
to help guide your decisions.

-philip
Dd2d775dea75b381edb1bbf0600a0907?d=identicon&s=25 Marnen Laibow-Koser (marnen)
on 2009-04-14 20:05
Julian Leviston wrote:
> Twitter has more than this, therefore its possible.

That's a horrible example.  Twitter is notorious for poor performance
and frequent outages.

However, GitHub and Lighthouse are good examples of high-traffic Rails
apps with good performance.  So is Backpack, I think.  So it certainly
is possible.

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen@marnen.org
2505b282d57c29be797dc35b245adb4c?d=identicon&s=25 Philip Hallstrom (Guest)
on 2009-04-14 20:13
(Received via mailing list)
> Julian Leviston wrote:
>> Twitter has more than this, therefore its possible.
>
> That's a horrible example.  Twitter is notorious for poor performance
> and frequent outages.
>
> However, GitHub and Lighthouse are good examples of high-traffic Rails
> apps with good performance.  So is Backpack, I think.  So it certainly
> is possible.

cardplayer.com and spadeclub.com also run Rails.  There's a ton of
stuff going on much of which isn't cacheable (at least for
cardplayer.com).  3 years ago cardplayer did about 8 mil views a day
for a couple of weeks (during the WSOP).  There's some hardware behind
it, but we'd have done that with any other platform as well.

also, doesn't penny-arcade run rails?  they do a ton of traffic.

-philip
Fac81a9d95c81d817a2debb6f717f3ac?d=identicon&s=25 Sazima (Guest)
on 2009-04-15 22:50
(Received via mailing list)
Tom,

Check Joyent's article on LinkedIn scaling (Scale Rails to 1 Billion
Pageviews):

http://www.joyent.com/a/scale-rails-to-1-billion-pageviews

Also, we're currently revamping a couple very large sites using rails,
so we're quite confident on its performance. (vc tá em SP?)

Cheers, Sazima
775dc78d64c87ae51db522529c3784e9?d=identicon&s=25 Phillip (Guest)
on 2009-04-16 05:32
(Received via mailing list)
What would happen if you put an iFrame on the current site that
requests a response from a rails test app? It could be invisible to
the end user, and the requested asp page wouldn't depend on it. You
would be able to look at the logs and follow the activity from the
rails site. This might give you some basic insights into performance
issues.
51655eeeedad656fad30717c46852437?d=identicon&s=25 Chris Kottom (Guest)
on 2009-04-16 07:08
(Received via mailing list)
Hi Tom,

Just to fine tune your original question, you're probably most
interested in
knowing whether or not a Rails equivalent to your current ASP
application
will be capable of running on the same hardware and infrastructure as
your
existing setup with approximately the same resource requirements and
performance.  If I were sitting down with you as a consultant, I would
immediately ask the following questions:

   - What does your current hardware and infrastructure solution look
like?
   (i.e. number and type of servers, where hosted, etc.)
   - What does your application look like?  (i.e. mostly static content,
   dynamic application functionality, little/lots of Ajax, etc.)
   - How much higher is your peak load than your average load?  (i.e.
10x,
   50x, 100x, etc.)

Without that information, you're going to get a lot of answers about how
Rails scales well without really knowing whether or not Rails will scale
well for you.  However, if we assume a peak load somewhere between 10x
and
20x, you're talking about something on the order of a few hundred
requests
per minute which is not such a high demand to place on a basic Rails app
running on a single recent model server, especially if you're able to
implement some form of caching.
6fd237f6f40f5afca32aca6ea633f58a?d=identicon&s=25 Tom Lobato (Guest)
on 2009-04-18 21:11
(Received via mailing list)
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
Hi all!<br>
Thank you very much for the replys, all util information for my
decisions.<br>
<br>
As Chris noted:<br>
- My first post need to be fine tuned. Until next monday<br>
I will post the answers for the three questions (actual hardware, app
type <br>
and access peak/average relation).<br>
- I`m most interested in knowing whether or not a Rails
equivalent to <br>
current ASP application (and the new app that will be developted) will
be<br>
capable of running
on the same hardware and infrastructure as my <br>
existing setup with
approximately the same resource requirements and <br>
performance.<br>
<br>
For now, I can make only a little fine tune: I said one milion
pageviews, <br>
but it is not exact, because 50% of the pageviews are consumed by the
<br>
forum, and the new rails site won`t include the forum, rather we will
<br>
use Vbulletin or Jive SBS. Also, the rest 50% pageviews are consumed
partially<br>
by static content.<br>
<br>
Regarding hardware, I already use slicehost for some projects and like
it.<br>
I`am thinking about to use 2GB slice:<br>
<br>
<table>
  <thead><tr>
    <th class="plan">Plan</th>
    <th>RAM</th>
    <th>Storage</th>
    <th><abbr title="Bandwidth">BW</abbr></th>
    <th class="cost" colspan="1">Monthly Cost</th>
  </tr>
  </thead> <tbody>
    <tr class="odd">
      <td><strong>2GB slice</strong></td>
      <td>2048MB</td>
      <td>80GB</td>
      <td>800GB</td>
      <td>$130</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
from http://www.slicehost.com/<br>
<br>
Of course, it is just a possibility, since this decision depends
strongly of the <br>
research I`m doing now (including your replys).<br>
<br>
<br>
Tom Lobato<br>
<br>
Chris Kottom escreveu:
<blockquote
 cite="mid:8f7389aa0904152207ke55b4dey536a07bf160a5b24@mail.gmail.com"
 type="cite">Hi Tom,<br>
  <br>
Just to fine tune your original question, you're probably most
interested in knowing whether or not a Rails equivalent to your current
ASP application will be capable of running on the same hardware and
infrastructure as your existing setup with approximately the same
resource requirements and performance.  If I were sitting down with you
as a consultant, I would immediately ask the following questions:<br>
  <ul>
    <li>What does your current hardware and infrastructure solution
look like?  (i.e. number and type of servers, where hosted, etc.)<br>
    </li>
    <li>What does your application look like?  (i.e. mostly static
content, dynamic application functionality, little/lots of Ajax,
etc.)</li>
    <li>How much higher is your peak load than your average load? 
(i.e. 10x, 50x, 100x, etc.)</li>
  </ul>
Without that information, you're going to get a lot of answers about
how Rails scales well without really knowing whether or not Rails will
scale well for you.  However, if we assume a peak load somewhere
between 10x and 20x, you're talking about something on the order of a
few hundred requests per minute which is not such a high demand to
place on a basic Rails app running on a single recent model server,
especially if you're able to implement some form of caching.<br>
  <br>
  <br>
  <div class="gmail_quote">
  <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
 style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
    <div class="im">On Apr 14, 1:26 pm, Tom Lobato &lt;<a
 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:tomlob...@gmail.com">tomlob...@gmail.com</a>&gt;
wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <div>
    <div class="h5">&gt;   Hi all!<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;   I`ll rewrite a 10 years old site, written in asp/mysql<br>
&gt; (<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.motonline.com.br"
 target="_blank">www.motonline.com.br</a>). Now it has one milion page
views a month, and<br>
&gt; we can hope it grows after rewrite. Well, I know several ror
sites,<br>
&gt; but have no idea about its access stats. I already use ror for
smaller<br>
&gt; projects and only need to confirm if ror can satisfy the
performance<br>
&gt; demands for this.<br>
&gt;   Can you comment about the ror performance for such a page view
scale<br>
&gt; and/or point to some cases or statistics from existing sites?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;  Thank you,<br>
&gt;  Tom Lobato<br>
    </div>
    </div>
  </blockquote>
  </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~<br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups &quot;Ruby on Rails: Talk&quot; group. <br> To post to this
group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com <br> To
unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com <br> For more options,
visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl...
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---<br>
</body>
</html>
<br>
059ed46172a087063ce26250e44c8627?d=identicon&s=25 Fernando Perez (fernando)
on 2009-04-18 22:01
> (www.motonline.com.br). Now it has one milion page views a month, and
> we can hope it grows after rewrite. Well, I know several ror sites,
> but have no idea about its access stats. I already use ror for smaller
> projects and only need to confirm if ror can satisfy the performance
> demands for this.

Did you calculate how many req/s is 1 million page views per month? You
would be surprised how low that figure actually is.

Anyway, unlike twitter you will be able to do page caching on your most
viewed pages, that means Rails won't be hit and you'll be able to
achieve high performance.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.