<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/stylesheets/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>The BFC Computing Weblog: Architectures Scale</title>
    <link>http://blog.bfccomputing.com/articles/2008/05/19/architectures-scale</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>My God, It's Full of Source!</description>
    <item>
      <title>Architectures Scale</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Blaine Cook, formerly of Twitter, reminds folks that &lt;a href="http://romeda.org/blog/2008/05/scalability.html"&gt;architectures scale, not languages&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Some folks have been complaining recently that &lt;a href="http://rubyonrails.org"&gt;RoR&lt;/a&gt; doesn&amp;#8217;t scale, yet sites like &lt;a href="http://yellowpages.com"&gt;Yellowpages.com&lt;/a&gt; know how to do architecture and do just fine with it.  This isn&amp;#8217;t to say that Ruby and Rails both couldn&amp;#8217;t be faster and better optimized for scaling, but &amp;#8216;going wide&amp;#8217; should be easy with a good architecture.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The claim of request uniqueness in Twitter&amp;#8217;s case is an illustration of an architecture challenge.  I&amp;#8217;m always amazed how well Slashdot does with that same problem.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 19:55:00 -0400</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:8a1ce1eb-e0de-4f4f-ad4c-7bdb230a00c0</guid>
      <author>Bill McGonigle</author>
      <link>http://blog.bfccomputing.com/articles/2008/05/19/architectures-scale</link>
      <category>Web</category>
      <category>Development</category>
      <category>Open Source</category>
      <trackback:ping>http://blog.bfccomputing.com/articles/trackback/4757</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
