Re: Recommended production deployment (was: Re: Is Pylons a meta-package ?)
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Lawrence Oluyede l.oluy...@gmail.com wrote: The argument against PasteHTTPServer and CherryPy3 seems to be efficiency. The arguments against mod_wsgi and daemon mode seem to be ideological. (And I'm lost now: if you don't have mod_wsgi and you don't have an application daemon, what other choice is there?) Asynchronous web servers I guess Does Pylons even work with asynchronous servers? Don't think so. We should ask Manlio Perillo, nginx's modwsgi author, you can find him on the web-sig ML -- Lawrence, http://oluyede.org - http://twitter.com/lawrenceoluyede It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it - Upton Sinclair --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Recommended production deployment (was: Re: Is Pylons a meta-package ?)
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Tycon adie...@gmail.com wrote: No, mod_wsgi is a hack. Embedded mode is bad, no serious website is running app server embedded in web server. Daemon mode is even more stupid, an unstable (and non scalable) way of using web server to manage the app server, and invent a new communication protocol between them, when standard ones that support distributed architecture already exist. you are right no self respecting site will use that piece of junk! although I saw this email some time ago http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi/browse_thread/thread/88de3e07ea574ddb/95612a8e94613bf7 so you may reconsider that statement given this line. Apache/2.2.9 (Debian) mod_python/3.3.1 Python/2.5.2 mod_wsgi/2.3 Server at pypi.python.org Port 80 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Recommended production deployment (was: Re: Is Pylons a meta-package ?)
On Jan 14, 2:32 pm, Jorge Vargas jorge.var...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Tycon adie...@gmail.com wrote: No, mod_wsgi is a hack. Embedded mode is bad, no serious website is running app server embedded in web server. Daemon mode is even more stupid, an unstable (and non scalable) way of using web server to manage the app server, and invent a new communication protocol between them, when standard ones that support distributed architecture already exist. you are right no self respecting site will use that piece of junk! although I saw this email some time agohttp://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi/browse_thread/thread/88de3e07e... so you may reconsider that statement given this line. Apache/2.2.9 (Debian) mod_python/3.3.1 Python/2.5.2 mod_wsgi/2.3 Server at pypi.python.org Port 80 The pycon site mustn't know what they are doing either. ;-) Graham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Recommended production deployment (was: Re: Is Pylons a meta-package ?)
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 14, 2:32 pm, Jorge Vargas jorge.var...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Tycon adie...@gmail.com wrote: No, mod_wsgi is a hack. Embedded mode is bad, no serious website is running app server embedded in web server. Daemon mode is even more stupid, an unstable (and non scalable) way of using web server to manage the app server, and invent a new communication protocol between them, when standard ones that support distributed architecture already exist. you are right no self respecting site will use that piece of junk! although I saw this email some time agohttp://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi/browse_thread/thread/88de3e07e... so you may reconsider that statement given this line. Apache/2.2.9 (Debian) mod_python/3.3.1 Python/2.5.2 mod_wsgi/2.3 Server at pypi.python.org Port 80 The pycon site mustn't know what they are doing either. ;-) Those are just toy sites for a hobbyist programming language, not big mean serious e-commerce servers. And they're so inefficient they must waste a huge number of bogomips! -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Recommended production deployment (was: Re: Is Pylons a meta-package ?)
Lawrence Oluyede wrote: Paste and CP3 are not meant to be used in the deployment phase. I really don't care about who's fast during development mode (either Paste or CP3 or something else), I do care that mod_wsgi in Apache or nginx or lighttpd are solid. Would you recommend using ngxinx + mod_wsgi (as described in following link) as production configuration? http://wiki.codemongers.com/NginxNgxWSGIModule Regards, mk --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Recommended production deployment (was: Re: Is Pylons a meta-package ?)
No, mod_wsgi is a hack. Embedded mode is bad, no serious website is running app server embedded in web server. Daemon mode is even more stupid, an unstable (and non scalable) way of using web server to manage the app server, and invent a new communication protocol between them, when standard ones that support distributed architecture already exist. On Jan 12, 10:05 am, mk mrk...@gmail.com wrote: Lawrence Oluyede wrote: Paste and CP3 are not meant to be used in the deployment phase. I really don't care about who's fast during development mode (either Paste or CP3 or something else), I do care that mod_wsgi in Apache or nginx or lighttpd are solid. Would you recommend using ngxinx + mod_wsgi (as described in following link) as production configuration? http://wiki.codemongers.com/NginxNgxWSGIModule Regards, mk --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Recommended production deployment (was: Re: Is Pylons a meta-package ?)
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Tycon adie...@gmail.com wrote: No, mod_wsgi is a hack. Embedded mode is bad, no serious website is running app server embedded in web server. Daemon mode is even more stupid, an unstable (and non scalable) way of using web server to manage the app server, and invent a new communication protocol between them, when standard ones that support distributed architecture already exist. Tycon, are you talking about nginx's mod_wsgi or apache's mod_wsgi. That's two completely different projects IMHO. As for mod_wsgi on Apache I doubt that it is not scalable. At least it should be as much scalable as Apache. And it is not hack it is WSGI implementation for Apache. Graham could answer better here. BTW, I recommend using Apache with mod_wsgi. I'm running 6 pylons applications under Apache with mod_wsgi + MySql and I fit into 256 Mb of RAM and it runs really fast. From other side I don't have high loads and don't expect that soon. -- Dalius http://blog.sandbox.lt --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Recommended production deployment (was: Re: Is Pylons a meta-package ?)
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Tycon adie...@gmail.com wrote: No, mod_wsgi is a hack. Embedded mode is bad, no serious website is running app server embedded in web server. Daemon mode is even more stupid, an unstable (and non scalable) way of using web server to On Jan 12, 10:05 am, mk mrk...@gmail.com wrote: Lawrence Oluyede wrote: Paste and CP3 are not meant to be used in the deployment phase. I really don't care about who's fast during development mode (either Paste or CP3 or something else), I do care that mod_wsgi in Apache or nginx or lighttpd are solid. There are a lot of opinions being thrown about as if they're the absolute truth, and I'm afraid it may be confusing people. I can't speak officially for Pylons (only Ben can), but I can say that Pylons has been deployed on PasteHTTPServer, CherryPy, mod_wsgi, mod_proxy, nginx, and others, and all have been stable and are reasonable choices. It's not true that embedded mode is bad, daemon mode is even more stupid, or Paste and CP3 are not meant to be used in the deployment phase (especially CP3). They may be too underperformant for certain situations, but that does not make them bad across the board even if certain people think so. The argument against PasteHTTPServer and CherryPy3 seems to be efficiency. The arguments against mod_wsgi and daemon mode seem to be ideological. (And I'm lost now: if you don't have mod_wsgi and you don't have an application daemon, what other choice is there?) -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Recommended production deployment (was: Re: Is Pylons a meta-package ?)
On Jan 13, 7:44 am, Dalius Dobravolskas dalius.dobravols...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Tycon adie...@gmail.com wrote: No, mod_wsgi is a hack. Embedded mode is bad, no serious website is running app server embedded in web server. Daemon mode is even more stupid, an unstable (and non scalable) way of using web server to manage the app server, and invent a new communication protocol between them, when standard ones that support distributed architecture already exist. Tycon, are you talking about nginx's mod_wsgi or apache's mod_wsgi. That's two completely different projects IMHO. As for mod_wsgi on Apache I doubt that it is not scalable. At least it should be as much scalable as Apache. And it is not hack it is WSGI implementation for Apache. Graham could answer better here. I have learned that there is no point trying to counter these sorts of accusations. They never want to provide proof of why what they claim is true and even when you point out where their arguments are wrong, make no sense, or have been proven otherwise through actual use, they don't listen and just keep repeating the same FUD. They also never want to accept the basic concept of choice and that different systems are going to suit different peoples requirements or mindsets. The #pylons, #wsgi and #python.web irc channels seem to be a breeding ground for this sort of stuff. If I didn't know any better I would think this Tycon is the twin brother of one particular person on those irc channels. Although, that other person may have toned down their rhetoric by now, I haven't bothered to check lately what they are saying. It is pretty sad really, I would be quite happy adding those irc channels to my watch list and helping out people with WSGI, mod_wsgi, mod_python and Apache questions, but I don't because I would have to spend most of my time just countering the FUD that was being put around about both mod_python, mod_wsgi and use of Apache. Graham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Recommended production deployment (was: Re: Is Pylons a meta-package ?)
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:05 PM, mk mrk...@gmail.com wrote: Lawrence Oluyede wrote: Paste and CP3 are not meant to be used in the deployment phase. I really don't care about who's fast during development mode (either Paste or CP3 or something else), I do care that mod_wsgi in Apache or nginx or lighttpd are solid. Would you recommend using ngxinx + mod_wsgi (as described in following link) as production configuration? http://wiki.codemongers.com/NginxNgxWSGIModule I honestly don't know anything about nginx, altough I know personally the author of its mod_wsgi. Never used. We use modwsgi for Apache -- Lawrence, http://oluyede.org - http://twitter.com/lawrenceoluyede It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it - Upton Sinclair --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Recommended production deployment (was: Re: Is Pylons a meta-package ?)
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com wrote: There are a lot of opinions being thrown about as if they're the absolute truth, and I'm afraid it may be confusing people. Yeah, like saying that modwsgi + Apache are bad... I can't speak officially for Pylons (only Ben can), but I can say that Pylons has been deployed on PasteHTTPServer, CherryPy, mod_wsgi, mod_proxy, nginx, and others, and all have been stable and are reasonable choices. Yes I'm aware of that, I did use PasteHTTPServer in production for a while. What I was trying to say is that there are better options if we talk about scaling or performances (what Tycon was talking about all along) It's not true that embedded mode is bad, daemon mode is even more stupid, or Paste and CP3 are not meant to be used in the deployment phase (especially CP3). They may be too underperformant for certain situations, but that does not make them bad across the board even if certain people think so. I don't think they are bad, that's for sure The argument against PasteHTTPServer and CherryPy3 seems to be efficiency. The arguments against mod_wsgi and daemon mode seem to be ideological. (And I'm lost now: if you don't have mod_wsgi and you don't have an application daemon, what other choice is there?) Asynchronous web servers I guess -- Lawrence, http://oluyede.org - http://twitter.com/lawrenceoluyede It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it - Upton Sinclair --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Recommended production deployment (was: Re: Is Pylons a meta-package ?)
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Lawrence Oluyede l.oluy...@gmail.com wrote: The argument against PasteHTTPServer and CherryPy3 seems to be efficiency. The arguments against mod_wsgi and daemon mode seem to be ideological. (And I'm lost now: if you don't have mod_wsgi and you don't have an application daemon, what other choice is there?) Asynchronous web servers I guess Does Pylons even work with asynchronous servers? I guess as long as you don't have a database. Last I heard, Twisted ran WSGI applications in a thread because they might block. -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
