I and 4 colleagues will start on a university project and decided to use Ruby on Rails as it has many libraries that we need and is joyful.
The project is a website for researchers which will allow them to create account,login/logout,post their researches.
The project must feature hash tags and researches can be linked together, visitors must be able to search by tags and see the related researches, we may use a knowledge base to serve this knowledge to people.
So to my problem : performance, it is mentioned in the project paper that we should have good performance.
I've heard about Rails reputation of not having very good performance compared to others(Not sure if this has changed though but...).
I was thinking to use nodejs because it's very fast and scalable but unfortunately I didn't find all the libraries we need.
I searched and searched for a way to use a nodejs web server(expressjs or anything) only for serving and writing the whole application with Rails but I didn't find a way to execute ruby on nodejs.
So how to accomplish this ? If I use Nginx as a proxy server, can I then use nodejs as the main server(and If I can how?).
Thanks in advance.
PS
Thought to mention that we'll use use the latest versions of Ruby,RoR.
As for Node.js we don't mind to use 5 or 4 as long as our goal is achieved.
Scaling a web application is more about good architecture and best practices than it is about the web framework / language.
RoR has a bad reputation for performance coming from the early days when Twitter decided to switch to Scala. Actually they only switched some heavy duty processes for the back-end in Scala and take advantage of RoR's features for the rest.
Chances are that your application will not be scaling as much as Twitter. Even if you are going to, you should use an approach similar to theirs:
Make something that people will love using first. RoR helps you with fast prototyping.
If performance becomes an issue, then find the bottleneck. Chances are that RoR will not be the issue here. Most likely you need to improve something else, such as some Webserver configuration, or the Database needs indexes, or your server has too little resources.
If you reach a point that RoR IS actually the issue, you probably made something so valuable that the community of researchers will want to fix the issue for you...
Apart from Twitter, other large-scale sites that use RoR are Github, AirBnB, Basecamp, Hulu, Shopify and many more.
Conclusion: So my point is, RoR performs well enough that chances are that you don't need to be worrying about performance. Use it because it is fun to write and has the libraries you need, and worry about scaling when and IF it is needed.
Also, sorry to disappoint you, but running RoR on NodeJs is not possible, NodeJs is server-side Javascript, so it can't run Ruby. Alternatively you could run RoR on a JVM with JRuby but that is another story. If I were you I would stick to Ruby web servers like Passenger and Unicorn.
I would recommend you to use Nginx as a load balancer and for caching for your rails app, otherwise write your app in JavaScript, my hones opinion. NodeJS is a server side JavaScript and it's not possible to run ruby apps with node.
Ruby is slower than NodeJS, just make a simple test with loops and strings, you'll see a major difference.
In Javascrip with 10 mio iterations you'll see results under a second and sometimes nearly a half a second.
var str = 'blab lablaejd ksjdhsdlnsdsdksdkfnvdfvjeefvkdnfvkjfvidfvjndfvnfvfvovhelloasdkjfiweefsdffh';
var newstring;
var start, end,i;
start = new Date().getTime() / 1000;
for(i = 0; i<10000000; i++) {
var index = str.indexOf("hello");
newstring = str.slice(index, index+5);
}
console.log(newstring);
end = new Date().getTime() / 1000;
console.log(end-start);
document.getElementById("str").innerHTML = newstring;
document.getElementById("time").innerHTML = end-start;
<p id="str"></p>
<p id="time"></p>
And now test the same code in ruby and you'll get something about 4 second.
Ruby test code
The one of the advantages of NodeJS is the async, non-blocking code you can write.
But you have to decide, what you'll like coding with and have fun while doing so.
Related
Up to now I've always used PHP with or without a framework but a month ago I decided to start something new: Ruby and Rails, I found them quite easy and similar to PHP and some PHP frameworks in how they works but using a simpler syntax and many other advantages.
Some days ago I started reading about Node.js, Node.js vs Rails, "why node.js is better"...
I'm a bit confused but my objective is to learn something modern that will not become obsolete in a few months so:
What are the main differences between Rails/Ruby and Node.js and a framework based on it like Express.js (except that one is written in JS and the other in Ruby)?
What are the main advantages/disadvantages of using Node.js and framework based on it instead of a Ruby based solution like Rails?
Thanks!
There aren't enough differences between Node.js and Rails for it to practically matter.
A lot of what Node.js can do can be pulled off in Rails with things like EventMachine and Pusher. So unless you are really familiar with Rails' limitations, and know you'll be pushing the boundaries, you'd be hard pressed to make something a seasoned Rails developer couldn't do.
Having built apps in Node and Express I can say that they alone aren't enough to make a sexy application. They can seem just as old and stale if you don't have an outstanding frontend UI to facilitate the backend possibilities. Instead of comparing backend servers, I think the real future of doing amazing things is in front-end JavaScript frameworks like Backbone.js that use Express/Rails/Node.js on the backend.
I have chosen to go in the direction of Backbone.js with Rails as my backend API server. Because it's so easy to rapidly create a very nice RESTful backend server in Rails. Rails also makes working with CoffeeScript and precompiling/organizing Backbone code a breeze. There are already decent Backbone.js gems out there for Rails.
The Rails core is also able to acknowledge and embrace the fact that frontend JS MVCs are logically a good next step, and they have been working to strengthen the bond between the two. For those same reasons they have also worked to make Rails an even better API server so that it can work with frontend JS easier. Node.js and Express aren't putting as much effort to coordinate with frontend JavaScript MVCs as the Rails community is.
Being good with a JavaScript frontend MVC and Rails as a backend makes you also great for both worlds in terms of getting a job. You will easily be able to hop onto a Node.js project and add value to that team with your superior frontend experience, and you can also roll with the punches on a Ruby on Rails team and add value to them as well.
As official Node.js website explains it:
Node.js is a platform built on Chrome's JavaScript runtime for easily building fast, scalable network applications. Node.js uses an event-driven, non-blocking I/O model that makes it lightweight and efficient, perfect for data-intensive real-time applications that run across distributed devices.
On the other hand Ruby on Rails official website says:
Ruby on Rails is an open-source web framework that's optimized for programmer happiness and sustainable productivity. It lets you write beautiful code by favoring convention over configuration.
Given this I guess that it is more appropriate to compare Ruby and Node.js, but even this is not quite right given that Ruby is programming language and Node.js is NOT. You could probably compare JavaScript with Ruby but I guess that is not what you meant to ask with this question :)
So, for me, key point in understanding what Node.js truly tries to accomplish is well described on Node.js about page. Key Node.js idea (for me) is described in this sentences:
Node is similar in design to and influenced by systems like Ruby's Event Machine or Python's Twisted. Node takes the event model a bit further—it presents the event loop as a language construct instead of as a library. In other systems there is always a blocking call to start the event-loop. Typically one defines behavior through callbacks at the beginning of a script and at the end starts a server through a blocking call like EventMachine::run(). In Node there is no such start-the-event-loop call. Node simply enters the event loop after executing the input script. Node exits the event loop when there are no more callbacks to perform. This behavior is like browser javascript—the event loop is hidden from the user.
What this should enable you, is that you should be able to easily write highly concurrent programs without even thinking about concurrency using JavaScript syntax and callback functions as basic concurrent runnable units.
Your fear that either Rails or Node.js will be gone in a week is unfounded. Rails has a large community and will be around for a very long time even though currently (early 2012) it's getting a bit of hate thrown its way. Node.js is just getting started and has so much attention I don't think it will have any problems getting to the Rails level some day.
That said I've been evaluating Node.js and Rails as options for a project and the reasons I choose Node.js over Rails are:
"The Rails Way" - In my (admittedly limited) experience with Rails it really seems like you either do it the Rails way or you are going to be in for a world of pain. A big part of the Rails way is to use the ActiveRecord model. The advantage of this is that there are a lot of gems that work with your code happily because they know you'll be using ActiveRecord. The disadvantage is you are mixing your data access & model. I am not a fan of this idea so the Rails way for me still seems a bit.. off.
JavaScript is a key part of client side web development and the idea of using it on the client and server is interesting. I'm not super strong at JavaScript and I can't imagine a better way to get better then to have to use it everywhere.
My project has real time communication needs which while I'm sure can be done in Rails there seems to be quite a bit of positive mention on Nodes ability to handle this with socket.io being the front runner option.
At the end of the day no matter which you choose you will have a great time & learn a ton of new stuff that will change how you write code. If you're not on a big time crunch I'd recommend building a small project management tool in both and see which you prefer.
Either way.. Good Luck!
2 things - performance & productivity.
Performance (more details here)
(source: jslang.info)
Productivity (how fast you can build that app)
Ruby on Rails is specialized and highly productive tool for creating so called Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 applications (99% of internet sites are such apps). In my subjective judgement and experience in this area Rails about 2-4 times more productive than node.js or express.js.
For Web 3.0 apps (realtime things, client-side MVC, etc.) this isn't true, RoR doesn't keep its advantage there.
So choice depends on use case and priorities.
I know a lot more about Node.js than I do about Ruby. That being said, Ruby is much more widely adopted. It is currently a very hot skill to have in the work place. Some may argue with me on this but I think that Node.js is still "under development" and will be for a little bit longer. It has a lot of promise but just hasn't been adopted by many companies and projects yet.
I've been playing around with Rails (version 3) for a few months now and I understand the framework fairly well. However, I have yet to develop a large website which offers lots of database access and user interaction.
I'm fairly skeptical of the following:
The Speed and Scalability of Ruby (I've heard that its up to 10 times slower than most other server-side languages).
The extra background processing that Rails as a framework (multiple levels of abstration).
The lack of enterprise-level web apps that run on Rails (the only ones that I can think of Groupon, Github and Hulu).
The complexity of the environment (nginx > mongrel > rails > ruby > website).
The behind-the-scenes SQL operations (I know that these can be optimized, but I'm sure that I'll miss some).
For these reasons, I'm unsure whether to continue using Rails or to switch to something that is built ontop a more performant language .. say Java Spring.
Please advise :)
There are tons of large sites and infrastructures in production that use Rails. This question has also been asked to death over the years of Rails being actively used for all manner of web apps, large and small.
Short version is that it is not the fastest language around but despite that scales fine if you know what you are doing. And you should have enough money to hire people that know what they are doing if you actually have any problems of scale.
Scaling any webapp is hard, use the language/framework you know. Programmer happiness is king.
You can get good performance with Ruby. Easy:
require 'inline'
inline :C do |builder|
builder.c <<-C_CODE
void run() {
// Write your entire application in C here
}
C_CODE
end
run
Problem solved ;)
Not the speed and scaling discussion again?
In webdevelopment the things that are the slowest is the network communication (receiving the request, getting al your data back), the database (getting all your data from the database), and most of the times it is not about the computation time at all.
While it is true that Ruby and Ruby on Rails seem more focused on programmer happiness, I think that every decent web-application built in .NET or Java has as many levels of abstraction.
The complexity of the environment? I think you mean deploying? There are a lot of options, but the most used options are Passenger (very easy deployment on top of an apache or nginx), or Torquebox.
Torquebox for the moment is the fastest, best scaling solution (based on JBoss Application server), and several big names in the Ruby community are calling Jruby the implementation of choise to deploy your applications. While AFAIK the commonest deploy still is using REE (Ruby Enterprise Edition) and Passenger.
Unless you know you are going to have to do serious mathematical, cpu-intensive operations, I think the question you should ask yourself is: which framework/language will give me the quickest result?
If you are very proficient in Java/Spring, that might be the answer for you. But if your only worry is performance in general, I would say: do not hesitate and go for Ruby on Rails. It is a pure joy to develop in. The ruby community is really awesome if you would encounter any issues: support is just a post away.
And to conclude, I want to add a few very big sites using Rails: LinkedIn is using rails (and jruby), and Twitter still is using Rails for their frontend.
I have some (I think) really great ideas for an online strategy game similar to Travian. There's some content that I haven't yet figured out and some other challenges that I don't know of yet.
This is quite a big project and perhaps too heavy for one person that isn't a skilled web developer (yet). I'd still like to give it a shot, but I'm having trouble choosing a platform. The world "scales" has been thrown around a lot lately and I've seen Ruby on Rails being bashed because it doesn't scale well, so I've come here to get some answers.
I like Ruby on Rails, both Ruby and Rails. I'm certainly no expert at it but I love working with it. I have also worked with Python + Django before and also with PHP (which I am not fond of.)
Ideally the game would have, let's say, 7000 players per server, presumably a lot of data to be processed per second. Would RoR still be a viable platform?
I'm sorry if this question is vague, I guess I'm looking for a "RoR is fine, go at it!" kind of answer. Anything you might want to add is fine.
Thanks!
So if I were you, I would be looking into non-blocking servers like node.js, just because they are MUCH more suited to keeping many connections open for long periods of time, which is what games need to do, compared to traditional web servers.
That being said
There are 3 main things to worry about when you are scaling a web app; memory, execution speed, and io (hd and network) in that order.
For memory, things are much better then they used to be. Phusion Passenger uses copy on write to fork its workers, so the rails environment will get shared among all the workers on a given slice, which is pretty significant. There have also been huge improvements to the way ruby manages memory compared to "the dark times", if you are using 1.8.7 then you want to be using the patches that make up Ruby Enterprise Edition (the difference is like night and day). 1.9.x was pretty much a total rewrite of the runtime, so if you are using that the memory issues ruby had have already been addressed.
For execution speed, 1.8.7 is typically "fast enough" (at least after tuning garbage collection settings). 1.9.2 is actually around the same speed as python, which puts it on the faster side of interpreted languages. How important this point is completely depends on the nature of your application.
Last point is IO, which isn't really a concern of rails, but more your persistence strategy. Rubyists tend to love new things, so you will find first class support for things like redis and mongodb, with loads of people talking about using them and their wins/gotchas. I would look into mongo if I were you and see if the durability trade-offs are acceptable.
I was in java/.net before going to rails, and at the end of the day you are going to pay more for infrastructure, but the amount will be completely dwarfed by what you save in development time.
build it in Rails, host it on Heroku.com - job done. Almost infinite scaling that you don't have to worry about how it works (it just does) and it hosts a lot of highly trafficked Facebook apps so can more than handle it.
I think Ruby on Rails is a good choice for what you need. Actually, we recently created a platform for an online gaming tournament, where players and their gaming bots were playing a logic game.
We used Ruby on Rails and Sidekiq on the backend, ReactJS and WebSocket on the frontend. And it worked well for a quite massive number of players. Here is the tutorial based on what we learnt while building it: How to Write a Game Engine Using Ruby on Rails
As you said yourself, you already have the answer and you are only looking for encouraging words:). I am not RoR expert myself, but I don't think scalability is still such a great issue on this platform. I would advice you to do an architecture spike (XP terminology). Write a test with 7000 clients and method which would perform similar operations to what you intend to create. For example you might load files, render views or even just wait... The point is to test only the thing you are worried about. Good luck!
This is a bit of an impossible question to answer because in order to know whether rails is suitable for what you want to do we would need to a lot more about what you are trying to do. The best advice I can give in the absence of information is for you to check out the railslab scaling videos in order to work it out for yourself.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Are Ruby on Rails site usually slower than java or .net sites?
(This is assuming developers are not abusing the technology.)
A lot of Ruby sites I have seen have performance issues.
Yes, Ruby on Rails sites do have performance issues, just like any other site. And just like any other site, those performance almost always are rooted in architectural decisions, not the language or the framework.
There was a nice presentation a couple of years back by Joyent (might have been RailsConf 2007?), which showed on one slide all the servers that are running on a single instance of their Rails platform. About 40 processes. Only one of those processes was the Ruby interpreter, everything else was stuff like the DNS resolver, web server, database server, MTA, memcached, message queue, reverse proxy, load balancer, etc. Every single one of those can screw up your performance. That's a 97.5% chance that your performance problems have nothing whatsoever to do with Rails or Ruby.
There's some really nice E-Mails on the JRuby mailinglists, and also some Tweets and blog posts by people who rewrote their Java web applications in Ruby and got a 10% performance improvement.
A really good example is Twitter. Twitter is one of the biggest Ruby on Rails sites in the world. It is also one with a very unusual usage pattern that will give any framework that is designed for "normal" web applications a tough nut to crack.
Now, you might think, why did I choose Twitter of all things as an example of performance and scalabilit, when clearly it is the exact opposite that they are known for? Well, that's exactly the point: they have had a ton of scaling, performance and reliability problems. And not a single one of those had anything to do with Rails or Ruby. In fact, Rails and Ruby were pretty much the only pieces in their stack that they did not have problems with.
They had problems with unexpected growth. It doesn't matter which language or framework you use: if users are signing on faster than you can buy new servers, there is nothing you can do.
They had problems with the performance and scalability of MySQL. Again, MySQL has nothig to do with Rails or Ruby. In fact, MySQL is written in C, so if you really absolutely must make any ridiculous conclusion about a programming language, based solely on a single incident, then it would be this: C is slow. If you want performance, stay away from C.
(In this particular case, in one interview, they actually did blame Rails: they said that because Rails only supported a single connection to a single database, their MySQL instance simply got overloaded. Within hours of that interview being posted, two Rails developers independently of one another both released Rails plugins to implement multiple connections. The lesson is: only the 80% solutions are in the core. Twitter clearly isn't in the 80%. The plugin API is there for a reason.)
They had problems with the performance and scalability of the overall system. It turned out that, in order to get the product out quickly, they implemented absolutely no caching whatsoever. Even the "static" Twitter homepage was completely dynamically generated for every single request. Again, this had nothing to do with Rails or Ruby. You can bring any site down by turning off their caches, I guarantee you that.
They hit some very bad scalability problems (and the MySQL problems mentioned above are related to that) which were simply caused by the fact that people used the site in a way not anticipated by the developers. Everybody knows that Twitter is a micro-messaging platform. Well, except for the Twitter founders. They had this brilliant idea for a micro content management system.
And so, they did build a micro-CMS. And of course, the central piece of a content management system, is a content repository, IOW a database. Users however used Twitter as a micro-messaging platform. And the central piece of a messaging platform is a message queue.
As a result, MySQL was being used as a message queue. No two things could be further apart than a database (especially a SQL database) and a message queue. The two have almost exactly opposite requirements and constraints.
And of course, the entire architecture was built around that content repository which was now being abused as a message queue.
In response to that, the Twitter developers wrote their own message queue in Ruby, which helped performance and scalability a lot. But not enough. So, they wrote another message queue, this time in Scala.
It is this single rewrite that is wholly responsible for, I would estimate, at leat 70% of all the Rails FUD out there. But, I don't know about you: when I write something that I have absolutely no idea how to write it, and then I write the exact same thing a second time, when I actually do know what the heck I'm doing … the second one is always better than the first. And I suspect that this is the case here, too.
In several interviews, the Twitter developers have pointed out that Ruby on Rails was not responsible for their scaling problems. On the contrary, only the maintainability of Ruby made it possible to do such large-scale architectural changes to fix their scaling problems.
To cut a long story short: today, Twitter is actually using Ruby on Rails for what it was intended to be used: for a web application. And they use a database for storing data and not as a message queue. And they use an actual proper message queue. The message queue and some other backend stuff is written in Scala. The frontend is written in Ruby on Rails. Some stuff is written in C.
And all is peachy.
The real moral of the story here is that you can substitute pretty much any large web app, any language, any framework into the above story and it would still be true. MySpace is one of the slowest, most unreliable websites I know, and that is a .NET site. GitHub is one of the fastest websites I know, while being the biggest hosting platform (it has over a million repositories after just over 2 years, that's more than SourceForge and Google Code combined) and it is written in Ruby on Rails for the frontend, Sinatra for the web service, Ruby for the Git interfacing and Git infrastructure, Erlang for the federation and cloud infrastructure and Node.JS for the download server.
Here's a start
Scaling ROR
Why Rails can run slowly
Framework Preformance Comparison
SO related question
Related interest article Twitter abandons ROR its old I know but I didnt actually know that lol
Short answer
Could potentially sure.
Might be more likely than some other languages.
Depends on the application, the programmer and the architecture.
As I see it - RoR is only a bit slower. At least slower than .Net, cause ruby is interpreted language.
But in general - it depends on quality of developers. RoR app that uses nice caching will work n times faster than .net/java app that loads half database into memory and sends plenty database requests cause of select n+1.
yes it is slower, but in production it will probably only hurt you once your load "exceeds a certain point" ("x requests/sec") and most sites never see more load than that.
I'd like to know situations in which I should consider using a framework other than Rails.
Two things. First, Ruby is a relatively young language, and you may run into brick walls when trying to do slightly more esoteric things (like connect to non mainstream or older types of datasources). It also has poor GC, and no kernel threads, both of which are very important for a high performance platform. The main codebase (MRI) is quite hacky (lots of clever obfuscating programmer tricks like macros) and there are parts that are poorly written (gc and thread scheduling leap to mind). Again, it is a very young platform that got very popular very fast.
Secondly, while ruby the language and rails the ideas/paradigm are both phenomenal, ruby and rails the platforms are not. There is a hell of alot in both ruby and rails that is downright ugly, and deployment solutions are in the dark ages compared to what is considered normal for other platforms (php/asp/jsp).
Being accused of trolling here, so I will expound a bit. Due to the threading model, Rails cannot process requests concurrently unless you launch multiple full instances of your rails app. To do that you have two options, the relatively young and still under development passenger (mod_rails), or the tried and tested apache load balancer with multiple mongrel instances behind it.
Either way, the lack of the ability to just just spawn workers means you will want 5-10 full instances of your application running, which incurs a very large overhead (can easily be 300-500megs per app depending on your gems and how big your app is). Because of that, the infrastructure needed to serve rails is a hell of alot more complecated then most other things.
Now, that being said, the situation has been continuously getting better (I mean, passenger is usable now, it wasn't the last time I had to deal with deploying a rails app). I would be very surprised if rails doesn't catch up in the next few years.
Also, rubinius/jruby are doing things the right way, and are moving along at a great pace. I wouldn't be suprised if MRI gets dropped in the next few years in favor of one of those implementations for mainstream rails work.
Ruby on Rails isn't trying to be an end-all be-all web development framework. If you're going to build an application that is predominantly built using CRUD operations, you want to use a lot of AJAX, and you have total control over the database, then Ruby on Rails is one of a few excellent options. If you're doing something else, then there is a probably another framework that is a better match for your requirements.
edit: Matt amended his answer tastefully :) I've removed my own comments pointing out the things he's fixed.
Yes, Ruby definitely has some shortcomings. Green threads being a huge one. But as Matt has said, things are moving along in better directions.
The other posts are pretty much on the money. Decently simple CRUD apps are best suited for rails, though there are other frameworks you can try in Ruby that offer more flexibility.
Here's a great (and might I add objective) example of where not to use rails: Does the Rails ORM limit the ability to perform aggregations?
Wow, way to start a flamewar!
I'm going to start it off by saying that Rails will work for most apps. However, if you need to do a lot of async type work (like messaging between systems, such as getting a request, placing it in a queue and processing it in a different thread, or even on another machine), Rails is probably not your best choice. Ruby, at least at the current time, is not really strong on multithreaded code.
Let the insults fly!