On May 7, 12:53 pm, Mike Orr <[email protected]> wrote: > The CherryPy server also works with Pylons and is supposed to have > better performance than PasteHTTPServer. There should be an INI > configuration in the Pylons wiki or list archive.
I'm reasonably happy with apache2-mpm-worker/mod_wsgi or nginx/uwsgi. I am currently using varnish in conjunction with both for another project, but, what are the relative benefits of using one of the few dozen deployment situations listed? nginx -> proxypass (paster, cherrypy) nginx -> fastcgi nginx -> wsgi (uwsgi, mod_passenger, mod_wsgi (their somewhat broken implementation that has had some recent work done)) apache -> mod_proxy (paster, cherrypy) apache -> fastcgi apache -> mod_python apache -> mod_wsgi (embedded, daemon) apache -> mod_passenger lighttpd -> fastcgi lighttpd -> proxy (paster, cherrypy) This doesn't include cherokee with its native wsgi support and half a dozen other implementations. As Graham Dumpleton indicates, Apache is very capable in a lot of situations and I've had no problem running apache for clients handling 300m pageviews a month on 4 machines. The reason I've recently moved to nginx is that I can now handle the static media on nginx, utilize ncache (now that it is built in), utilize uwsgi which delivers great performance and I eliminate having to maintain nginx -> proxypass -> apache -> mod_wsgi -> pylons. My stack now looks like nginx -> uwsgi - > pylons. Simplicity should lead to better reliability.... or so one would hope. -- 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.
