On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0500, Daniel Salama <dsalama at user.net> wrote:

> I didn't mean to criticize on anyone (specially you) that corresponded
> on that thread. When I mentioned that the question in performance
> wasn't answered, I wasn't necessarily referring to the Transcript>>show
> question.

No worries, I wasn't taking offense.

> Now, I presented a scenario of an application I wrote with Ruby On
> Rails and described the working environment where that application is
> running. My hope was that may be someone would have experience with
> Squeak/Seaside with a similar type of application or application that
> operated under similar conditions to comment how that behaves in
> Squeak/Seaside. As one of my first projects I want to work with in
> Squeak/Seaside is the porting of this application with all of its data.
> It's ambitious considering it to be a "first" project, but that's just
> the way I find myself challenged to do things. I just wouldn't want to
> go through all the effort to find out at the end that it simply won't
> handle the volume (efficiently).

The volume you mention (50 concurrent users, 10k txns/day) doesn't
sound out of line.  I'd probably want a dedicated server for that,
though.  And yes (as you asked earlier) it is possible to load balance
Seaside apps across several servers or CPUs; I do it using some simple
mod_rewrite rules, though the "pound" load balancer (google for it)
would probably also work well.

Whether GOODS can reasonably handle the 1M customer records you
mention, I frankly have no idea.  Actually, one of the problems with
the GOODS client right now is that bulk loading is extremely slow, so
I've never had the patience to get anywhere near that much data into
it for testing.  For production apps these days I'm using OmniBase,
which isn't ideal (for one thing, the Squeak port of the free version
badly needs to be brought up to date, though the commercial version
has been), but has been solid and scalable so far.

Avi