On Apr 28, 8:55 pm, Haron Media <i...@haronmedia.com> wrote: > > While paster is great for development, at least in simple benchmarking > > I was never able to get it to go reliably beyond a few hundred > > concurrent connections. > > Per how many processes / threads / paste instances (and on what hardware)?
X3220, 8gb ram, debian squeeze I didn't do a lot of tuning with paste since apache2/mod_wsgi kept up quite well and I was able to have apache serve the static resources. I've started working with nginx/uwsgi which isn't much more difficult than setting up nginx/paster. I find that the nginx->proxy interface is slower than nginx->uwsgi. While I've not done a ton of work with nginx/uwsgi, I have done a lot of work with nginx -> varnish esi -> nginx/apache2 for non-Pylons projects and that proxy interface definitely adds a bit of overhead. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-disc...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
