That’s the sentiment behind my statement. I was wrong to say it was pointless. But the attraction of node to many large companies is its performance under conditions of very high concurrency.
These companies could have chosen CGI options. They didn’t. They chose node. If the performance potential of node on the IBM i has been reduced to being the same as CGI, that really undercuts
what many companies are looking for in node.
Sorry, but I completely disagree with this. If you are trying to support the number of concurrent connections where your choice of NodeJs vs. Java vs. CGI vs. whatever on an IBM i is the bottleneck to concurrent user performance your IBM i will have buckled long before that under the weight of database server jobs. I believe the most compelling driver for IBM i sized companies to use NodeJs is that they can use the same language on the front-end as they do on the back-end - nothing to do with performance or scaleability.
The examples of companies that you cited almost certainly used NodeJs as part of a wider strategy to provide them with the massively scaleable infrastructure required to support their business. They are also often not "typical" businesses in the context of where IBM i's are used, they tend to be very decentralised for a start. Now I don't know what your web app requirements are, but for an application used in-house or even a reasonable public facing application I believe you're absolutely wasting your time worrying about the framework's performance and scaleability. If, on the other hand, you are developing the next Amazon or Facebook and you know you are going to scale massively then you'd need to completely rethink your entire IT infra-structure IMO - running NodeJS on an IBM i simply won't cut it.
I'd worry about getting a clean separation between your backed application logic and your front-end clients using some sort of RESTFul API, then you can worry about scaling if the need arises by load balancing across machines or re-architecting those parts of the app that require it.
________________________________
From: WEB400 <web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Kelly Cookson <KCookson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 10 April 2018 16:36
To: Web Enabling the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries)
Subject: Re: [WEB400] [EXTERNAL] Re: ibm_db node module and IBM Data Server Driver
Okay, that’s fair. Not pointless.
Yet, if you can get equally good performance from CGIDEV2 and COBOL, or from XMLSERVICE wrappers and CGI, then why would RPG or COBOL developers want to go through the hassle of learning asynchronous programming with JavaScript and node? What do they gain from using node?
And, if node on the IBM i does not perform better than CGI under conditions of very high concurrency, then that may become an argument for running node on servers other than IBM i.
That’s the sentiment behind my statement. I was wrong to say it was pointless. But the attraction of node to many large companies is its performance under conditions of very high concurrency. These companies could have chosen CGI options. They didn’t. They chose node. If the performance potential of node on the IBM i has been reduced to being the same as CGI, that really undercuts what many companies are looking for in node.
Thanks,
Kelly Cookson
IT Project Leader
Dot Foods, Inc.
217-773-4486 ext. 12676
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.dotfoods.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cde60829f5bb14d4e7d0008d59ef06ee9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636589677837977942&sdata=8XHVwloQTuP1dFURLceIhb8k%2FSGF8pDJ%2FBQnsRO9bes%3D&reserved=0<
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dotfoods.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cde60829f5bb14d4e7d0008d59ef06ee9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636589677837977942&sdata=G59CWj%2BqvtFtqbCZt4jNL4XXws5YmZ9uG7y2OmCqqYY%3D&reserved=0>
--
This is the Web Enabling the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (WEB400) mailing list
To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.midrange.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fweb400&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cde60829f5bb14d4e7d0008d59ef06ee9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636589677837977942&sdata=NKbUXN7mGEq5nfjN1q6wonziUYLPSubgs%2BoJgHVsKyI%3D&reserved=0
or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.midrange.com%2Fweb400&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cde60829f5bb14d4e7d0008d59ef06ee9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636589677837977942&sdata=q%2FoRuXLxXBXLcyls2Cr3WQZFcGzkefWhb57b6nxINus%3D&reserved=0.
midrange.com
