Comments on: Metal: Super-fast Endpoints within your Rails Apps

By: mikhailov

mikhailov — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:28:40 +0000

Bala, it's impossible. Rack Middleware is here since Rails 2.3
I have had Rails 2.2 based Application, but rewrite this one to Rails 2.3.5 for night and really happy with Metal.
You can spend some time to do the same and your application will be easy to maintenance + all major advantages, like Rack middle application usage and Metal.

By: Bala

Bala — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:51:27 +0000

Hi,

Is there any Possibilities to use rake and metal in rails 2.2.?

Please any can help me ASAP.

Regards,
Bala

By: mikeyaozm

mikeyaozm — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:35:18 +0000

Yeah, a wee bit unfortunate that. Had similar high hopes blasted with the Ruby Shootout announcement recently

By: Peter Cooper

Peter Cooper — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 09:50:53 +0000

Okay, okay, you've twisted my arm :)

By: DHH

DHH — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 09:41:34 +0000

Probably would be a good thing to update the post as well. Otherwise you need to click through to see the correction and it's not going to show up in RSS either.

Metal is still awesome, though. It's just that Action Controller would be in a rough shape if it was only able to do 45 req/sec on hello world. So I'd rather just make sure that we don't let that number fester. 800 req/sec (or more accurately, 1.2ms) is a very respectable number for the pure run through the stack.

By: Peter Cooper

Peter Cooper — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 09:21:20 +0000

Yeah, a wee bit unfortunate that. Had similar high hopes blasted with the Ruby Shootout announcement recently ;-)

Still, it's awesome nonetheless. I'll let your comment stand as the correction because there's little more authoritative than that!

By: DHH

DHH — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 09:14:33 +0000

Note that the 45 req/sec vs 1200 req/sec number is way off. It was probably done with Rails in development mode. Pratik ran some much better numbers (800 vs 3000 req/sec): http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2008/12/20/performance-of-rails-metal