FWIW, yesterday I commited a new uWSGI wizard that should configure Cherokee according to the uWSGI project config file. As always, there's lots of room for improvements, but check it out.
Any comments are most appreciated ;-) Roberto De Ioris wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 05:38 +0100, Oli Warner wrote: > >> I've just noticed the uWSGI handler. I run a lot of Django sites under >> Cherokee (currently using SCGI) so I'm curious about a few things: >> * Is uWSGI faster? >> > > a bit, speed is not the primary goal (as flup and other deploy > technologies already works well and there is little space for other > optimization) > > >> * Is it more efficient with system resources? >> > > > without the python engine, the server fit in about 4/5 pages, so it is > very resource friendly > > > >> * Is it stable? >> > > the server (not the cherokee handler, as it is relatively young) is used > by about 2 hundreds production ready python apps. We are an ISP > specialized in deploy technologies and resource containing. > > >> * Will it redefine the way I host Django apps? >> > > I do not think. It gives you a framework/environment for deploying wsgi > apps (advanced debugging, self healing, profiling, multiapps, > timeouts ...). This is its strenght. > > >> In short, why would I want to replace my current ./manage runfcgi ... >> sources with a uswgi handler? >> >> > > If you do not need the features of the uwsgi server there is no need to > change your deploy technology (we have used flup for ages without > particolary problems, but we need a more advanced environment so we > developed uwsgi and its protocol) > > You find more information on the official site: > > http://projects.unbit.it/uwsgi > > -- [email protected] http://unixwars.com/ _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
