On 12/05/2010, at 02:17, kevin beckford wrote: > As a question, I am debating once again running processes in > supervisor on the backend and reverse proxying request to them vs > having cherokee handle the whole thing. The main reason would be > logging of the backend processes plus the ordinary supervisord > benefits.
That'd introduce delay in the response times. The more layers you add, the higher performance penalty you get. > I am pretty sure that cherokee basically does the same thing, > though... does it have the same hooks to control the processes ( or > similar ) to supervisor? Cherokee is, as a matter of fact, a supervisor/angel/guardian of the cherokee-worker process, which is the one doing the real server work. -- Octality http://www.octality.com/ _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
