Re: application deployment question about nginx and pylons
On 28 Apr., 03:29, Thomas G. Willis tom.wil...@gmail.com wrote: I am pretty sure you can do those things with apache too :) . I was under the impression that nginx is easier to setup and faster/lighter weight for things specific to web applications. My experience has been that apache configs don't fit my brain all that well, whereas I found nginx configuration to be fairly straightforward for the most part. That's exactly my point of view. With nginx you can get a performant deployment in reasonable time. It feels like much more made for this job. Cheers, Michael -- 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.
Re: application deployment question about nginx and pylons
On Apr 27, 10:00 pm, Terry Schmitt tschm...@schmittworks.com wrote: Like Weixi Yen, my preference is the simplicity of using reverse proxy with Nginx. I've used this in the past for Java based apps. It's fast, easy to configure and I will probably use that as my first choice as I venture into the Python world. If you're looking for performance, I believe using a wsgi gateway will outperform proxypass - paster. 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. -- 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.
Re: application deployment question about nginx and pylons
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.
