Lastly, You can build server side applications using javascript in Nodejs. Interestingly, the Nodejs is built on Chrome’s V8 JavaScript engine and is open source and also available on Google Cloud. Mostly, it does it by converting the JavaScript into machine code.Īs a result, machine code is executed swiftly. The main objective of Nodejs is to transfer the users from client-side to server-side. Using Ruby on Rails IDE, you can develop best web apps and scale it easily. One of the significant benefits of Ruby on Rails is that it is simple to write and delivers high performance. Learn more about it at: Ruby on Rails Backend Development Therefore, it has a default structure for database, web pages, and web services.įurthermore, you can use JSON or XML in it to transfer data and HTML, CSS and JavaScript for its UI.ĭue to its use of the proper software engineering patterns such as DRY( Don’t Repeat Yourself) and CoC(Convention Over Configuration), it has become top choice for businesses. Ruby on Rails supports MVC(Model View Controller) Architecture. This framework is written in Ruby Language. Ruby on Rails is a website development framework. To help you make better decisions, this article will guide you and present you with a detailed comparison of node js vs ruby on rails. The difficult task is to decide which one you should choose. Ruby on Rails and Nodejs both are prominent and popular backend development technologies.īoth the Ruby on Rails and Node js offer a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. Hacker News has a long thread of reactions to this decision of using Node.js over Rails.We will understand Ruby on Rails vs Nodejs through this article. You’re comparing a lower level server to a full stack web framework.” It was definitely a better fit than Ruby on Rails for what the mobile server ended up doing, but it is not a performance panacea. The Mongrel(s), we affectionately referred to them, often bloated up to 300mb of RAM each, so we couldn’t run many of them.Īfter pinpointing some of the problems, Lan eventually admitted that “v8 is freaking fast” but added: “Don’t assume that you must build your next technology using node.js. A proxy with a maximum concurrency factor dependent on how many single-threaded Mongrel servers we were running. That’s a cross data center request, guys. Running on single-threaded Rails servers (every request blocked the entire process), running Mongrel, leaking memory like a sieve (this was mostly the fault of gettext). The Rails server did some stuff, like translations, and transformation of XML to JSON, and we tested out some new mobile-only features on it, but beyond that it didn’t do a lot. The servers designated for mobile services were hosted by Joyent, so when a mobile application needed some information the request had to travel to Joyent then make another trip to LinkedIn’s datacenter where the main API service was located, according to Lan: Why did we use 3-legged OAuth? Simple: we had no idea what we were doing. Three legged OAuth, so we also turned those Rails servers into OAuth providers. we upgraded to Rails 2.x+ … Oh, and we also decided to use OAuth for authenticating the iPhone client. … We deployed using Capistrano, and were the first ones to use nginx. It was deemed that the cost of shipping fast was more important than CPU efficiency, a choice I agreed with. The problem with Mongrel? It’s single-threaded. Phusion Passenger wasn’t released yet (more on this later), and Mongrel was light-years ahead of FastCGI. Mongrel was cutting edge Ruby technology. The stack we chose was Ruby on Rails 1.2, and the deployment technology was Mongrel. Ikai Lan, a former member of the mobile team at LinkedIn, shared his part of the story on the technology chosen and the problems encountered: LinkedIn’s story of dumping Rails due to scalability reasons triggered some reactions around the web. Front-end JavaScript engineers could be used for back-end code, and the two teams were actually merged into one.Using only 3 servers instead of 30, leaving room for a 10x traffic growth.Better performance, Node.js being up to 20x faster than Rails for certain scenarios.According to Prasad, Node.js was eventually chosen providing a number of benefits: LinkedIn evaluated three possible solutions: Rails/Event Machine, Python/Twisted, and Node.js. Kiran Prasad, Director of Mobile Engineering at LinkedIn, told ArsTechnica they had to reconsider their back-end infrastructure providing mobile services for LinkedIn clients because although only 7-8% of the clients were using their mobile application, the Ruby on Rails back-end suffered from severe scalability problems. A former LinkedIn team member reacted explaining what went wrong, in his opinion. LinkedIn replaced their back-end mobile infrastructure built on Ruby on Rails with Node.js some time ago for performance and scalability reasons.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |