[modwsgi] Re: Is this correct way for using mod_wsgi
2009/4/17 Johny pyt...@hope.cz: Graham, Thank you for your reply. I red the articles with given link but yet not sure how I should set mod_wsgi. I have this Apache settings( MPM worker) StartServers 2 MaxClients 150 MinSpareThreads 25 MaxSpareThreads 75 ThreadsPerChild 25 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 that means only max 6 processes will be allowed to be run at the same time. Is it so? No. What it means is that the Apache server child processes, which are what initially accepts requests, can handle a maximum of 150 concurrent requests. This is across however many sites you have and also counts for static file requests which the Apache child server processes handle or dynamic requests that get proxied through to the daemon processes. Does it mean that I should not set more than 6 processes in mod_wsgi ? No. Technically for where daemon mode processes use only a single thread, you could have up to 150 processes if you really wanted to, as there is enough capacity within the main Apache server child processes to proxy that many requests at a time. You don't obviously want to use that many processes, but technically you could. If I have e.g. 10 virtual servers , a total number of processes in mod_wsgi settings must also be only 6? No. You need to count threads, not processes. If there are requests for all those 10 virtual servers what happens? The 4 servers will not run? Since under normal circumstances you are unlikely to get 150 concurrent requests, which is your capacity with default worker MPM settings, everything should work just fine. That is not going to be the bottleneck. I can only suggest you stop trying to prematurely optimise things. Use the default worker MPM settings and if your application is not thread safe, give each instance 2 or 3 processes. Unless you have a heavily loaded site, or have an application which has lots of requests which take a long time, because of file uploads for example, even this will probably be more than adequate. What you may end up with I can't tell you as it depends on your particular application. You will only know when you have your application written and run it with realistic test traffic to see how it performs. Graham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups modwsgi group. To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[modwsgi] Re: Is this correct way for using mod_wsgi
Graham, Thank you the explanation. So I am recommended to give instance 2 or 3 processes. and set threads =1 . But if one virtual server has about 1500 times more requests ( and allows files uploading) than other virtual servers, how should I set this one server? In the same way? Thank you for your reply L. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups modwsgi group. To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[modwsgi] Re: Is this correct way for using mod_wsgi
2009/4/18 Johny pyt...@hope.cz: Graham, Thank you the explanation. So I am recommended to give instance 2 or 3 processes. and set threads =1 . If your application is not thread safe, then it would be a reasonable starting point. If they are low traffic sites you could probably get away with a single process if no long requests. But if one virtual server has about 1500 times more requests ( and allows files uploading) than other virtual servers, how should I set this one server? In the same way? For that you would preferably want to make your application thread safe and use a multithreaded process instead. That way you can handle more requests without blowing out memory requirements. If you can't do that, first see how it goes with 2 or 3 processes and only then if need be for that daemon process group for that one instance, increase number of processes. Overall it is really really hard for me to say what you should set it to. It is your application and you know how it works, I don't. I can only give generalisations and you shouldn't be taking them as gospel. As I keep saying, you can only begin with a base configuration and then test it with realistic traffic patterns to gauge how well it works and then tweak configuration if need be. Graham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups modwsgi group. To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[modwsgi] Re: Is this correct way for using mod_wsgi
2009/4/16 Johny pyt...@hope.cz: I have installed Apache/2.0.59 with MPM prefork with mod_wsgi and it works. But I wanted to installed MPM worker so I compiled and installed Apache/2.0.63 with MPM worker to a different directory but have not installed again mod_wsgi .Instead I copied the installed mod_wsgi to the modules directory that Apache/2.0.63 with MPM worker uses. Is it possible? I am asking that because I receive Segmentation fault Thu Apr 16 12:36:24 2009] [notice] Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_wsgi/2.3 Python/2.3.5 configured -- resuming normal operations [Thu Apr 16 12:36:34 2009] [notice] child pid 17305 exit signal Segmentation fault (11) [Thu Apr 16 12:36:38 2009] [notice] child pid 17306 exit signal Segmentation fault (11) How can I repair that? Normally the compiled mod_wsgi module should work with either prefork or worker MPM, but technically there are some things that could stop that. I can therefore only recommend you rebuild mod_wsgi from source against the newer Apache for the correct MPM. Graham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups modwsgi group. To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[modwsgi] Re: Is this correct way for using mod_wsgi
Graham, Thank you for your reply. So I tried to rebuild the mod_wsgi but it finds the old Apache ( prefork version) 2.0.59 root@ /mod_wsgi-2.4# ./configure checking for apxs2... no checking for apxs... /usr/sbin/apxs checking Apache version... 2.0.59 checking for python... /usr/bin/python configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating Makefile How can I solve that? Thank you L. I have installed Apache/2.0.59 with MPM prefork with mod_wsgi and it works. But I wanted to installed MPM worker so I compiled and installed Apache/2.0.63 with MPM worker to a different directory but have not installed again mod_wsgi .Instead I copied the installed mod_wsgi to the modules directory that Apache/2.0.63 with MPM worker uses. Is it possible? I am asking that because I receive Segmentation fault Thu Apr 16 12:36:24 2009] [notice] Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_wsgi/2.3 Python/2.3.5 configured -- resuming normal operations [Thu Apr 16 12:36:34 2009] [notice] child pid 17305 exit signal Segmentation fault (11) [Thu Apr 16 12:36:38 2009] [notice] child pid 17306 exit signal Segmentation fault (11) How can I repair that? Normally the compiled mod_wsgi module should work with either prefork or worker MPM, but technically there are some things that could stop that. I can therefore only recommend you rebuild mod_wsgi from source against the newer Apache for the correct MPM. Graham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups modwsgi group. To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[modwsgi] Re: Is this correct way for using mod_wsgi
Dear Graham, Thanks for the reply.I installed mod_wsgi with MPM worker and it works now.But I could not see the differences, regarding memory using, when MPM worker is used in comparison with MPM prefork.Must I change mod_wsgi setting anyhow? I use daemon mode with processes=3 threads=1 Thank you for help L. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups modwsgi group. To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[modwsgi] Re: Is this correct way for using mod_wsgi
2009/4/17 Johny pyt...@hope.cz: Dear Graham, Thanks for the reply.I installed mod_wsgi with MPM worker and it works now.But I could not see the differences, regarding memory using, when MPM worker is used in comparison with MPM prefork.Must I change mod_wsgi setting anyhow? I use daemon mode with processes=3 threads=1 If using mod_wsgi daemon mode, whether you use prefork or worker MPM doesn't really matter. If you don't have to support use of PHP on same web server however, you are better off using worker MPM. For some of the issues that come up with prefork MPM, especially if you happened to be using embedded mode, see: http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2009/03/load-spikes-and-excessive-memory-usage.html Also have a read of: http://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/wiki/ProcessesAndThreading This explains a bit about the different modes of mod_wsgi and the different Apache MPMs. Graham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups modwsgi group. To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
