Anyone using mod_wsgi with Apache? how good is that for deployment, better/worse then mod_proxy with paster? Jose
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Jonathan Vanasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On May 20, 1:33 am, "Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > People say it also has a better knowledge of the quirky > > useragents out there and can correct misformed requests better than > > just exposing PasteHTTPServer or CherryPy directly, though I don't > > know how true it is. > > That's pretty much true. > > > There are a few newer servers now (nginx, lighthttpd, cherokee) that > > claim to be smaller, more efficient, and better organized than Apache. > > Those aren't claims. > > > On my production server I've found Apache sufficient so I haven't > > bothered with them. > > I've just been running nginx -> paster for personal projects & > internal dev. We're looking to launch a 100k requests/day min project > here, and I've got a client who I've sold onto Pylons and is looking > at building their entire web-service startup on it. Apache is pretty > much out-of-the-question... they'll need too many servers to handle > it's memory hogging and speed limitations > > > On May 20, 1:58 am, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > It really depends on what you want to do. > Yes, that is correct. Sorry for being vague. > > > If you are going to run a large site which is able to respond well to > > bursts in traffic, running Python embedded in Apache running prefork > > MPM, with huge amounts of memory in the box is generally the best > > approach. This is because although memory usage will be high, being > > non multithreaded you can use any cpu/cores to best advantage, plus > > you benefit from Apache's ability to create dynamically more processes > > to handle demand when required and then reap them when no longer > > required. > > This is for a startup that will initially have 1pylons + 1 postgres > server, and scale out accordingly. They're a video startup, and have > some bigger names backing them, so I'd expect them to scale large > quickly. > > However... I have years of experience with mod_perl, and have found > the overhead of apache to be nearly worthless. By proxying static > stuff off of apache onto nginx, and offloading code portions into > nginx/php or twisted, we were able to gain a lot of efficiency. > Apache does its job exceedingly well , but its bloated. > > > > On May 20, 7:40 am, lasizoillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nginx, lighthttpd, ... never have > > the same number of modules than apache, because non-blocking code is > > harder to write. > > I think its also because they're only a few years old, and still the > underdog. > > > On May 20, 9:20 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am running on my production server Apache and mod_scgi. Why? > > Because when I looked to flup I saw I had the choice between scgi and > > fcgi. I tried scgi first and it worked like a charm. > > > > Using Apache was was a natural choice: I still have some php-based > > content running on the same server > > Ah... see, I ditched php off Apache years ago. It's very unnatural to > me. Running off of lighttpd or nginx i saw between 5 and 10x more r/s > possible. The only reason why I still use apache is for mod_perl > projects, and being able to program the server - not the webapp. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
