|
|
|
|
|
by mrkurt
1612 days ago
|
|
It is a spicy take. I agree that Varnish and commodity CDNs are more efficient per pageview than hitting any kind of full stack app process. Most devs can probably ignore efficiency, though. Making things fast for users will take them a long way. My spicy take is really "in the context of full stack apps". CDNs are amazing for, like, Netflix. And Wikipedia. They're really, really good for one to many files. With Fly, you do flip it around. And you might find out you don't really even need a cache. Rails + Postgres read replicas are pretty dang fast with one less moving piece. We have an awful lot of users who just do in process caching and hit their DB when they need to, it's pretty cool. ESI seemed so promising when I first read about it. Then I realized I couldn't actually _use_ it anywhere. I'm still kind of aggravated at how excited it made me. |
|
(But one thing I don't currently do that has always looked shockingly slow when I've measured it, is Rails i18n. But in general, I'm kind of surprised to find you saying Rails view generation is pretty dang fast! It's always seemed to me like the Rails answer was "yeah, we know, that's why you cache." But now I wonder what I'm doing terribly wrong...)