Folks I just suggested to untie keystone from wsgi and implement uwsgi support. And then let the user decide what he or she wants.
There is a plenty of auth modules for nginx also. Nginx us much better as a proxy server and you know it. Regarding mod wsgi and apache we already saw that it cannot handle simple restart. I think this is not in any way acceptable from operations point if view. 18 сент. 2015 г. 18:59 пользователь "Fox, Kevin M" <[email protected]> написал: > Part of the reason to use Apache though is the diverse set of > authentication mechanisms it supports. Operators have the desire to plugin > Keystone into their existing authentication systems and Apache tends to be > easier to do that then others. > > Thanks, > Kevin > ________________________________________ > From: Jim Rollenhagen [[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 7:04 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Apache2 vs uWSGI vs ... > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 06:48:50PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > In the fuel project, we recently ran into a couple of issues with > Apache2 + > > mod_wsgi as we switched Keystone to run . Please see [1] and [2]. > > > > Looking deep into Apache2 issues specifically around "apache2ctl > graceful" > > and module loading/unloading and the hooks used by mod_wsgi [3]. I > started > > wondering if Apache2 + mod_wsgi is the "right" solution and if there was > > something else better that people are already using. > > > > One data point that keeps coming up is, all the CI jobs use Apache2 + > > mod_wsgi so it must be the best solution....Is it? If not, what is? > > Disclaimer: it's been a while since I've cared about performance with a > web server in front of a Python app. > > IIRC, mod_wsgi was abandoned for a while, but I think it's being worked > on again. In general, I seem to remember it being thought of as a bit > old and crusty, but mostly working. > > At a previous job, we switched from Apache2 + mod_wsgi to nginx + uwsgi[0] > and saw a significant performance increase. This was a Django app. uwsgi > is fairly straightforward to operate and comes loaded with a myriad of > options[1] to help folks make the most of it. I've played with Ironic > behind uwsgi and it seemed to work fine, though I haven't done any sort > of load testing. I'd encourage folks to give it a shot. :) > > Of course, uwsgi can also be ran behind Apache2, if you'd prefer. > > gunicorn[2] is another good option that may be worth investigating; I > personally don't have any experience with it, but I seem to remember > hearing it has good eventlet support. > > // jim > > [0] https://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.org/en/latest/ > [1] https://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.org/en/latest/Options.html > [2] http://gunicorn.org/ > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
