Actually one correction: standalone CherryPy smokes everything else (including apache+modwsgi embedded mode) for dynamic content (It's almost TWICE as fast). But CheeryPy (or any python HTTP server) is slower for serving static files. So if you don't have many static files, it might be better to use standalone CherryPy over apache +modwsgi embedded mode.
On Jan 13, 6:52 am, Tycon <[email protected]> wrote: > I think CherryPy is awesome, much better than "Paster" HTTP (which > cant even do HTTPS). > > In general I prefer to separate the web server and app server (over > the embedded approach) as it is more modular, flexible and scalable. > But embedded deployment has a theoretical performance advantage > because there is no overhead of communication between the web and app > server. > > The best option for embedded deployment is apache+modwsgi (but apache > +mod_python or nginx+mod_wsgi also exist). Apache+modwsgi (embedded) > is faster than Apache as a reverse proxy, and also outperfoms > standalone CherryPy or PasterHTTP, but it's not faster than nginx as > reverse proxy with CherryPy (performance is about the same for dynamic > content, and nginx serves static content faster). In addition the > memory consumption with apache+modwsgi embedded mode is much higher. > So despite the theoretical advantage of embedded mode (for small > deployment), it does not materialize into actual advantage for apache > +modwsgi. > > Last word on modwsgi and its "daemon" mode, which is similar to > reverse proxy and fcgi in that it separates the web server and app > server. As such, it has the same theoretical performance as reverse > proxy and fcgi (which in fact provide the same performance), but it > uses a proprietary communication protocol, and inlike proxy or fcgi, > it requires the app and web server processes to be on the same machine > (so it does not scale across a pool of machines). Also this "modwsgi" > provides a rudimentary way for the web server (e.g. apache) to monitor > the app server, but this is a poor substitute for actual server > monitoring tools. So In summary modwsgi daemon mode is completely > useless, while modwsgi embedded mode is the best choice when using > apache as the webserver, if you only have a single node and enough > memory on it. > > On Jan 13, 4:40 am, mk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Lawrence Oluyede wrote: > > > I honestly don't know anything about nginx, altough I know personally > > > the author of its mod_wsgi. Never used. We use modwsgi for Apache > > > That's the response on what you actually use in production, thanks. :-) > > > Regards, > > mk --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
