Devin Torres wrote: > If I understand you correctly, there's a flup entry point that forks > the process instead of flup_fcgi_thread? I'm not sure that would have > good performance, but maybe you think forking is capable of good > performance in this case. After forking, would SQLAlchemy connections > stay persistent? Is that safe? >
Flup has both fcgi_fork and scgi_fork flavors. They are pre-fork so it creates a pool of long running processes and it passes connections to them. This is the same model that Apache uses an is in theory quite efficient. You do NOT have to wait for a fork on every connection because the pool of processes has been forked in advance and is ready and waiting. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
