And the cache function is that easy to do? Is W2P also faster then Django?
On 22 apr, 19:01, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > If you store everything in the database the only bottleneck is the > database. The web2py DAL does not add a significative overhead. You > can have as many servers you need under a load balancer. Those web > server can work independently (other than for the database) thus > providing scalability. > > You cannot separate the issue of scalability from the issue of speed. > > - web2py is much faster than rails. If you try them both you will feel > the difference. > - web2py supports connection pools > - You can improve web2py speed by storing uploaded files in a upload > folder (the default) and make it a shared folder. This will reduce > database load but does not necessarily reduce network load. > - You can improve speed by not using sessions. > - You can improve speed by caching page in ram or memcache. > > I am sure other uses will have experiences to share. > > Massimo > > On Apr 22, 11:43 am, Pynthon <forumx...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello > > > Ruby on Rails is sometimes hard to scale I heard. How is this with > > W2P? > > > Thanks > > Pynthon --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py Web Framework" group. To post to this group, send email to web2py@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
