On 13 December 2011 15:27, Rodrigo Campos <rodr...@sdfg.com.ar> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 01:15:00PM +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote: >> On 13 December 2011 08:09, Rodrigo Campos <rodr...@sdfg.com.ar> wrote: >> > Thanks a lot for your quick answer =) >> > >> > No, static files should be served by nginx. We are using it as a proxy. >> > Apache >> > should serve only de Python App. Why ? :) >> >> If there is no static files being served and only dynamic Python >> stuff, can continue to use embedded/prefork. You would though just >> want to setup Apache MPM settings to control better number of child >> worker processes and pre start them and leave them running rather than >> allowing Apache to dynamically adjust number of processes. > > I'm kind of doing this right now. StartServers and MinSpareServers are the > same > (50) and MaxSpareServers, MaxClients and ServerLimit are set to 60 and > MaxRequestsPerChild to 4000. Is this what you mean ? > > I was considering to lower it even more, since nginx timeout for proxy mode > default value is 50/60 sec (I checked, don't remember right now), to have > more a > "one on one" apache process per WSGI process. Or perhaps 2 apache process per > WSGI process, I was going to try. Any suggestions here ? :) > > And increasing the process parameter in the WSGIDaemonProcess directive did a > great difference (request queueing in newrelic grows a lot when there are many > requests at the same time, and it seems they went down even when there are > many > request with a higher process parameter), so I was planning to increase it up > to > 16 (on a quad-core) instead of the actual value of 4. I wasn't sure about 16 > either, perhaps it is too overloaded, but I was goint to try that first > (suggestions are very welcome, of course :)). But if I increase it right now > it > seems that poorly written queries get stucked on the DB server. So other > people > is tackling that first :) > > A value of 16 WSGI process with 32 apache process, in "theory" (my > calculator), > seems to leave enough RAM free and the perf test I did (kind of quick ones > with > "ab", nothing really serious) where ok. Is there anything else I should take > into account ? > >> Do this and can use less processes than worker MPM and daemon mode. > > Really *less* ? Or comparable ? > > Let's say I have N WSGI process and 2*N apache process. If I use worker I will > keep the N WSGI process and use less apache process but with threads. Even if > I use N process with prefork, the "worker" equivalente should be less process. > Perhaps it is not substancial, since WSGI process use a lot more memory that > apache prefork process. What am I missing ? Or you are saying its not a > substancial difference ?
You said originally you were using 'mod_wsgi embedded mode' and was basing what I said on that. If using embedded mode you would have no WSGI processes (daemon mode). I am confused. Did you originally mean to say daemon mode? Graham -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "modwsgi" group. To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en.
