Re: Which scales better? J2EE, PHP, or CGIDEV2? -- WEB400

Subject: Re: Which scales better? J2EE, PHP, or CGIDEV2?
From: Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/web400>
List-help: <mailto:web400-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:web400@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400>, <mailto:web400-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400>, <mailto:web400-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

From: Aaron Bartell
Maybe we should define scalability.

We need something measurable. Perhaps a point system:

+n For each block of nnn concurrent users supported with uniform response times.
+n For each block of nnn additional applications (mixed workloads).
-n For each additional application server instance required.
-n For each additional virtual partition required.
-n For each additional physical application server required.
-n For each EJB (or equivalent) server installed (complex business logic).

The reason for assigning negative values to certain architectural elements is be
cause they require substantial sustained skillful human intervention to
implement; therefore not scalable.

-Nathan

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Which scales better? J2EE, PHP, or CGIDEV2? , Aaron Bartell

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.