On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 12:20 -0800, Bob Ippolito wrote: > However, proxying is a lot easier to set up than FastCGI.
Absolutely. That's what I always use. I doubt the small performance gain is going to add up to much in the way of scalability anyway ;-) What I typically use is a small cluster of Pylons servers proxied to by Nginx, which is something else not as easily done with FastCGI. > I'm sure there's things that can be done to paste.httpserver to make > it come closer to FastCGI in performance. Maybe. I'm going to be investigating fapws (and perhaps CherryPy's WSGI server as well) to see if there's any significant gain by using those rather than paste.httpserver (although I suspect most of the overhead is in the framework and application, not the HTTP server itself, so even significant gains in HTTP performance might not add up to much overall). Regards, Cliff --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
