It looks like bjoern is only single threaded, so can’t process concurrent requests, and has no configuration besides host and port.
I wouldn’t sacrifice features for the sake of performance unless I had a compelling reason to. The WSGI server is rarely a bottleneck. You’ve been using Apache+mod_wsgi, presumable with success because you haven’t mentioned otherwise, why not keep on using that? — Theron > On Sep 12, 2019, at 10:27 AM, Alexander Mills <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks Bert, have you seen the results: > > https://www.appdynamics.com/blog/engineering/a-performance-analysis-of-python-wsgi-servers-part-2/ > > <https://www.appdynamics.com/blog/engineering/a-performance-analysis-of-python-wsgi-servers-part-2/> > > bjoern seems to be much more performant than the alternatives. > > -alex > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "pylons-discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pylons-discuss/a4bb546c-fb43-476b-9614-cc9b96f6945a%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pylons-discuss/a4bb546c-fb43-476b-9614-cc9b96f6945a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pylons-discuss/208279DC-4204-48FA-8759-13C3543EAD07%40luhn.com.
