On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:50 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[email protected]>wrote:
> > * Move the PyPI installation to mod_wsgi (I believe it is using FCGI > > now?) > > For the latter: correct. > > For the former (use mod_wsgi): I had actually implemented it, but needed > to revert to FCGI, because mod_wsgi would cause too many hanging servers. > I'm surprised, what specific mod_wsgi configuration did you try? I've had good luck with a using a daemon process and making sure no process lives too long. There's another configuration of mod_wsgi that runs Python in the Apache process, which I've never used and doesn't seem like a good idea to me. > > This is largely work that would have to happen to move to a CDN, but > > it's simpler (given how PyPI works now) and I believe will relieve most > > of the problems we've seen. > > As for the switch to WSGI: it will *introduce* new problems. > > > PyPI right now is really quite reliable, > > these small changes would I think be low-risk and less likely to > > introduce new problems while addressing what I suspect is the source of > > problems. > > I disagree that these are small and low-risk. The WSGI switch will risk > stability; the others (generate static pages) will not be small, and > risk correctness. > I don't really know how to describe "small" or "low-risk"... maybe I should say "smaller" and "lesser-risk" than the full CDN proposal. -- Ian Bicking | http://blog.ianbicking.org
_______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
