Rodeo: 2 questions

David Bovill david at vaudevillecourt.tv
Thu May 20 12:25:27 EDT 2010


On 20 May 2010 16:55, Jerry Daniels <jerry.daniels at me.com> wrote:

> The cheapest, most scalable and fastest performing are all the same
> solution:
>
> 1. Client: thin
> 2. Web server: thin, but round-robin'd the IP addresses to 1 of the 13 app
> servers
> 3. Web app server: hefty, almost fat
> 4. Data: thin and agnostic (NO stored procedures)
>

Hi Jerry this is not the sort of scalability that is needed for some
interesting classes of apps. First it is very expensive in terms of set up,
and then admin. By very expensive I mean more than $1,000.

It is the transition between - "give the idea a go" and "wow it's taken off"
that I'm interested in addressing. If you can get the costs down on that you
can do some interesting things. At the progression from basic hosting to the
set up you describe is a big expensive jump. Also it does not scale
massively for bursts on unpredictable demand. One application I've been
asked to get my head around may have up to 1 million concurrent users or it
may flop - a pay as you go service like Amazon or Google App engine helps
you cope with that.

In the world of webApps, I think we can also consider other scenarios:


   1. AJAX embeds / Flash / revLet plugins for blogs, webApps on mobiles
   2. Client side processing and web service based data => no need for 2)
   3. Cloud based DB such as Google AppEngine or Amazon SimpleDB
   (effectively combines 3 and 4)

People buy the apps, come to a separate web site where they can create
customised embeds for their blogs or social networks. They can buy or
subscribe and this covers the cost of the Cloud DB as it scales



More information about the Use-livecode mailing list