> I'm surprised, what specific mod_wsgi configuration did you try? Not sure I understand the question:
WSGIDaemonProcess pypi display-name=wsgi-pypi processes=10 threads=1 maximum-requests=2000 WSGIProcessGroup pypi WSGIPassAuthorization On WSGIScriptAlias /pypi /data/pypi/src/pypi/pypi.wsgi WSGIScriptAlias /simple /data/pypi/src/pypi/pypi.wsgi According to the bzr log, I reverted that because Python would crash (with a core dump). > > 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. Ah, ok - relatively speaking. That is certainly true: the CDN proposal has more risk to not work correctly. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
