On May 20, 1:33 am, "Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > People say it also has a better knowledge of the quirky > useragents out there and can correct misformed requests better than > just exposing PasteHTTPServer or CherryPy directly, though I don't > know how true it is.
That's pretty much true. > There are a few newer servers now (nginx, lighthttpd, cherokee) that > claim to be smaller, more efficient, and better organized than Apache. Those aren't claims. > On my production server I've found Apache sufficient so I haven't > bothered with them. I've just been running nginx -> paster for personal projects & internal dev. We're looking to launch a 100k requests/day min project here, and I've got a client who I've sold onto Pylons and is looking at building their entire web-service startup on it. Apache is pretty much out-of-the-question... they'll need too many servers to handle it's memory hogging and speed limitations On May 20, 1:58 am, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It really depends on what you want to do. Yes, that is correct. Sorry for being vague. > If you are going to run a large site which is able to respond well to > bursts in traffic, running Python embedded in Apache running prefork > MPM, with huge amounts of memory in the box is generally the best > approach. This is because although memory usage will be high, being > non multithreaded you can use any cpu/cores to best advantage, plus > you benefit from Apache's ability to create dynamically more processes > to handle demand when required and then reap them when no longer > required. This is for a startup that will initially have 1pylons + 1 postgres server, and scale out accordingly. They're a video startup, and have some bigger names backing them, so I'd expect them to scale large quickly. However... I have years of experience with mod_perl, and have found the overhead of apache to be nearly worthless. By proxying static stuff off of apache onto nginx, and offloading code portions into nginx/php or twisted, we were able to gain a lot of efficiency. Apache does its job exceedingly well , but its bloated. On May 20, 7:40 am, lasizoillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nginx, lighthttpd, ... never have > the same number of modules than apache, because non-blocking code is > harder to write. I think its also because they're only a few years old, and still the underdog. On May 20, 9:20 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am running on my production server Apache and mod_scgi. Why? > Because when I looked to flup I saw I had the choice between scgi and > fcgi. I tried scgi first and it worked like a charm. > > Using Apache was was a natural choice: I still have some php-based > content running on the same server Ah... see, I ditched php off Apache years ago. It's very unnatural to me. Running off of lighttpd or nginx i saw between 5 and 10x more r/s possible. The only reason why I still use apache is for mod_perl projects, and being able to program the server - not the webapp. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
