On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 13:49 -0400, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:10:27PM -0700, Jonathan Vanasco wrote: > > so is Apache considered to be a good thing (through mod_wsgi , > > mod_python , or other ?) > > > > i've been doing mod_perl dev for years, and have had some experience > > with mod_python -- generally speaking, my experience is that if you > > can avoid apache you're better off. i guess that's what is throwing > > me off. i equate apache with "isn't there a better way now?" > > I don't mean to come off as sounding curt, but I've often heard that > from people who haven't really maintained the alternatives. Or that > have an application that gets deployed in a highly isolated environment, > where interoperability means nothing.
Funny, over the last couple of years, I've deployed Nginx in front of nearly a hundred websites, ranging from Pylons and TurboGears to PHP and Wordpress down to simple static HTML. According to Netcraft, Nginx is now deployed in front of over 1 million domains. Not nearly as much as Apache, but clearly not all of those are "highly isolated environments". In fact, many sites with heavy traffic are moving to Nginx due to it's vastly superior scalability. Some notables that use Nginx: wordpress.com youtube.com hulu.com rambler.ru torrentreactor.net kongregate.com Where did you get your research from? (Actually, don't answer that, I can guess). > Frankly, the flexability of Apache is what makes it so much better > than the alternatives. It has solid support for just about anything > related to the web. It has excellent, complete documentation > surrounded by a large, knowledgeable user community. I'd qualify this paragraph as "some of Apache's strengths are", rather than a blanket "it's better". For some people, in some settings, it is better. For others it isn't. If you need high scalability, it isn't the best. If you need a small memory footprint it's not the best. If you prefer a sane configuration syntax it isn't the best. If you need all three then it's arguably amongst the worst. > I equate Apache with "There is no better general solution", even > though various half-assed alternatives have been cooked up. I certainly intend to sound curt: There are places where Apache is the only possible solution. Personally I've found that to be the minority of deployments where you need specialized modules that are only available on Apache. When you choose Apache you gain a wide array of modules and add-ons that might neatly solve a particular problem, but you sacrifice efficiency, scalability, and simplicity of configuration. Choosing a web server, like any other software selection, is a matter of weighing pros and cons and selecting the one that fits your needs the best. We all have strong opinions about software, but try to stick to reasoned arguments and leave the insults at home, especially when it's abundantly clear you've never even tried (or perhaps even read about) the alternatives. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
