Is there any restriction on how many rails apps can be run on a 5$ digital ocean droplet?
You can run any number of them if you turn swap on. It will just be very slow.
An Introduction to LiteStack for Ruby on Rails
11–20 of 39 posts
Re: An Introduction to LiteStack for Ruby on Rails
#12This is neat! I like.
It reminds me somewhat of Turso.
Re: An Introduction to LiteStack for Ruby on Rails
#13Something feels wrong to use Current.account in models.
It is in fact how it was designed to be used, you can read the reasoning here: https://dev.37signals.com/globals-callbacks-and-other-sacril...
Re: An Introduction to LiteStack for Ruby on Rails
#14Oh dang I love this.
I also wish someone would take something like this and go full Phoenix with it.
Re: An Introduction to LiteStack for Ruby on Rails
#15It says people are using sqlite for production. How big can you grow your database before it becomes a problem ?
As big as your disk/SSD.
Re: An Introduction to LiteStack for Ruby on Rails
#16Something feels wrong to use Current.account in models.
I see conventions like that as an acknowledgement that Rails often gives up purity in favour of simplicity. It makes this decision quite often, primarily because it works for Basecamp, but also it keeps the mental model simple, especially for juniors learning the ropes.
I've not seen many places that actually use it. Instead there are several other layers of patterns that try to keep things decoupled but introduce a different kind of complexity. And the implementation is different every time (Ruby devs love their custom service/command DSLs).
Re: An Introduction to LiteStack for Ruby on Rails
#17Is there any restriction on how many rails apps can be run on a 5$ digital ocean droplet?
Yes, memory. 4$ droplets have only 512mb. that's barely enough to run bundle install for one application. 6$ droplets give you 1GB and that's plenty for one app,
You might have some success if you run the build before deploying it (provided you use the same arch as the droplet). It's not going to give you a lot to work with and Puma's default config will take up most of it.
A 1/2GB box could run the bare minimum if you host the database on it as well. For a small scale app or a hobby/toy project that's going to do just fine.
Re: An Introduction to LiteStack for Ruby on Rails
#18Something feels wrong to use Current.account in models.
It is in fact how it was designed to be used, you can read the reasoning here: https://dev.37signals.com/globals-callbacks-and-other-sacril...
The reasoning being basically "fuck Ruby and consistent OOP practices, this is how we roll". I used to be fine with this, but the more I work with Rails, the more I feel like it's trying to make me a worse programmer. Business logic in controllers, service "objects" (not actually objects at all), the OOP abomination that are models with dozens of different behaviors and agendas inherited via concerns. In Rails you can always pick your poison, but you don't seem to be allowed not to be poisoned.
Re: An Introduction to LiteStack for Ruby on Rails
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is in fact how it was designed to be used, you can read the reasoning here: https://dev.37signals.com/globals-callbacks-and-other-sacril...
The reasoning being basically "fuck Ruby and consistent OOP practices, this is how we roll". I used to be fine with this, but the more I work with Rails, the more I feel like it's trying to make me a worse programmer. Business logic in controllers, service "objects" (not actually objects at all), the OOP abomination that are models with dozens of different behaviors and agendas inherited via concerns. In Rails you ca…
> Maximalist positions are a thing in our industry. Take a technique, outline its drawbacks, extrapolate you can’t use it under any circumstance, and ban it forever. We are lucky that Rails embraces exactly the opposite mindset as one of its pillars.
Re: An Introduction to LiteStack for Ruby on Rails
#20Here's more on the subject from Fly.io https://fly.io/ruby-dispatch/sqlite-and-rails-in-production/