On Aug 26, 5:55 am, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Graham Dumpleton wrote: > > FWIW, if would do much better to Cherokee's credibility, presuming you > > speak for its development team, if you present proper informed > > analysis rather than conjecture and FUD. > > Graham, > > First, I am glad you are interested on Cherokee and the decisions we are > making. In fact, I could not think of anybody else who could comment on > this better than you (as mod_wsgi author). > > So, first of all, thanks for the long Apache internals tutorial. It has > been enlightening (seriously, even if it is a program I do not fancy > very much, there were a couple of interesting points I did not know). > > However, there are a number of things you said I can not agree with. > The first and most important one, is the design flaw. Let's try to > forget about Apache for a second. Let's forget about its performance > issues (a few of them might be Layer-8 issues as you pointed) and its > ancient NCSA inheritance. Let's focus for a second on information > systems design from a high level point of view. From that perspective, > keeping the application logic, data and representation independent from > each other (MVC-like) is a good idea; I do not think there is much to > discuss about it. The very same principle applies to this case, keeping > the transport layer (the web server) and the application logic > independent IS a good idea as well, regardless of any concrete > implementation. > > There is a bunch of examples and similes that support this affirmation. > Well known and accepted programming paradigms, the Unix way of working: > applications with a single purpose communicating with each other (never > embedding), or even the current web technology where people keep their > data, formating (css) and application logic independent for the shake of > maintainability. > > Besides that, there was another thing you wrote that caught my > attention. As we all know, size matters (in this world, big is bad > though). You said that the Python interpreter is not that big, and you > were partially right, although you missed the Principle of relativity. > > Putting it in context will change your perception: > > -------------- > $ ps -eo rss,comm | grep python > 3620 python
I'm confused here. This is my Fedora 8 desktop: $ ps -eo rss,comm | grep python 17460 python Now if you change the ps arguments to: $ ps -eO rss,comm | grep python 2439 8660 yum-updatesd S ? 00:00:00 /usr/bin/python -tt / usr/sbin/yum-updatesd 2824 19084 puplet S ? 00:00:00 /usr/bin/python -tt / usr/bin/puplet 2833 17460 python S ? 00:00:00 python /usr/share/ system-config-printer/applet.py 13140 692 grep S pts/8 00:00:00 grep python That memory usage you show is not used by the interpreter alone but mainly by the application, in this case yum-updatesd, puplet and applet. Isn't it? Regards, Clodoaldo Pinto Neto > > $ ps -eo rss,comm | grep cherokee > 1856 cherokee > > $ ps -eo rss,comm | grep apache2 > 2068 apache2 > 2216 apache2 > 2220 apache2 > -------------- > > 0 1Mb 2Mb 3Mb 4Mb 5Mb 6Mb 7Mb > | | | | | | | | > Che |=============> | > Py |===========================> | > Apa |===================================================> | > > For the record: Python was a completely empty interpreter with no > imported modules at all. Cherokee was using the default set up for > serving static content, and Apache was configured with a minimum number > of modules (even logging was commented out). > > So, despite what you suggest, if a bare minimum interpreter is twice as > big as the web server, I wouldn't personally call it "small". IMO Python > rocks anyway, but calling it small may be too much. > > Anyway! Let's put the swords down. > > Graham, thank you very much for sharing your point of view with us. I am > sure that even if we have different technical approaches the > discussion has been useful for many people. > > Hopefully someday you will join the project instead of marking my > technical argumentation as FUD. In fact, what about trying to prove me > wrong by writing handler_wscgi? Independently of the result, it'd lot of > fun for both of us. ;-) > > Cheers! > _______________________________________________ > Cherokee mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED]://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
