I interpreted the original article that their new node.js approach was wildly different than a server-based MVC framework.
Sure, they ended up with 20x greater speed, but never did they say that it was because node.js. They even provide a high-level detailed description of all the things they did with their new approach to achieve this performance.
"LinkedIn Moved from Rails to Node: 27 Servers Cut and Up to 20x Faster" should say something like "LinkedIn did a rewrite and rearchitecture that cut 27 Servers and increase speed aby 20x"
Comments
This sounds much more sane than "node is 20x faster than rails", thanks for validating the assumption most of us were making.
I interpreted the original article that their new node.js approach was wildly different than a server-based MVC framework.
Sure, they ended up with 20x greater speed, but never did they say that it was because node.js. They even provide a high-level detailed description of all the things they did with their new approach to achieve this performance.
Yes, but the title on HN implied that. We need to be better about writing our submission titles, but hey, sex sells.
True! Thanks.
"LinkedIn Moved from Rails to Node: 27 Servers Cut and Up to 20x Faster" should say something like "LinkedIn did a rewrite and rearchitecture that cut 27 Servers and increase speed aby 20x"
... using node.js
I'm sure you mean high scalability's linkbait titles, right?
This. I wish there had been more context in the original article.