7 ms·
No, they both matter. The database can handle X shops per partition, and the rails host can handle Y shops per partition. If rails were half as fast, you'd nee
by mabbo 3y ago
No, they both matter. The database can handle X shops per partition, and the rails host can handle Y shops per partition.
If rails were half as fast, you'd need twice as many rails hosts (but no more databases).
- phamilton 3y ago> but no more databases Sort of. Twice as many rails hosts means more DB connections which generally means more load/memory on the DB or more load/memory on the external connection pooler. It's only a bit of incremental load, but it's easy to overlook how many other systems need to run to make Rails scale.
- brianwawok 3y agoNo he’s his examples he’s talking 50 stores over 10 machines vs 50 stores over 5 machines. Both would require the same DB count, but the second would save on server costs for stores.
- mabbo 3y agoI think the above means (if I do get the point) that databases scale in terms of both requests per second and number of active connections. Having 1000 connections doing 1 request per second isn't the same as having 1 connection doing 1000 requests per second. But, and I could be wrong, the larger factor is the number of requests per second.
- brianwawok 3y agoThis entirely depends on the database you are using, and if you are using a connection proxy in front of your database.