On Jul 24, 8:30 pm, Gábor Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Graham Dumpleton wrote: > > So, the question is, what are you trying to achieve or want? Was there > > a specific reason for the question? Knowing what you are really trying > > to do, might be able to suggest others things you can read to learn > > how Apache manages processes and how Python sub interpreters are used > > in this scenario. > > thanks for the information. > > for various reasons, some of our django applications are running using > apache+fastcgi, and some using apache+mod_python. we were preferring > mod_python (because it's the "recommended" setup for django), > and only used the fastcgi-solution where we could not use mod_python > (again, various stupid reasons :) > > but now we will probably have to add more django applications to the > system, so i was thinking if it should be done using mod_python or > fastcgi (i am sorry but i did not consider mod_wsgi, because i had the > feeling that it's still "too new". btw. would you consider it > production-ready? (i understand that it's a stupid question :))
There will hopefully be a 1.0 release candidate for mod_wsgi made available in the next few days. Only reason it will not be a 1.0 release is that there is still a bit of extra documentation that I want to finish up first, especially in the area of how web hosting companies may make best use of it so we might finally get some good cheap Python hosting available. So, releasing it as 1.0c1 rather than 1.0 is partly to try and defer large scale adoption a bit longer so I can still find time to write the documentation instead of perhaps answering questions from a lot of new users. :-) > so from what i've read here, it seems fastcgi/mod_wsgi-daemon-mode would > be the safest route (i've read the discussion about psycopg2+decimal on > django-devel). > > btw. what do you think about having multiple apache-servers with > mod_python, each hosting only one django-application. > > would that be an overkill? > > p.s: the django-applications i am talking about are intranet-apps, so we > do not think there will be much load on them... Nothing wrong with using multiple Apache instances. When one goes that track the issue is more along the lines of the extra effort involved in setting them up and maintaining them and any proxy in front. If the load is indeed light and you can validate your applications are multithread safe, then running each server with 'worker' MPM and 2 child processes would probably be a reasonable solution which still keeps memory usage down thus allowing you to still run many servers on the one box. Graham --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
