The uWSGI setup is more robust, both in terms of scalability, and load
balancing. I'd suggest it for any multiuser setup at this point.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Josephine Palencia <josep...@psc.edu> wrote:
> Current setup:
> : have 1-2 VMs w/ 4-core each, 4GB mem mounting remote lustre shared fs
> : use remote job submission: cli/ssh
> : proxied, use remote auth login/logout
> I'm prepping for a scenario where there will be 60-75 users/students
> who will simultaneously submit several complete genomics workflows
> to the single VM (I actually have 3 identical VMs). Full runs can go from
> 30min to an hour and a half each.
> I have 1 of the VMs set up with the standalone paste-based
> with 5 job handler and 5 web server processes. Would this be enough for
> this scenario? (or 10/10, 20/20, more?).
> I have the 2nd VM being set up using the uWSGI method.
> Would it be worth it to proceed with the standalone paste-based or just
> skip it and exclusively only concentrate on the uWSGI setup (or keep
> both?). I'd like to automate everything (remote job submissions for full
> workflows) and just let it (60 test users or so) run for 1 month to check
> reliability, anticipate problems.
> I'd appreciate feedback, thoughts from those who have already gone through
> a similar experience.
> Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
> in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this
> and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
> To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:
Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this
and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: