Re: Django deployment options
On 20-Sep-07, at 9:01 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote: >> one caveat here - if you are running a site on shared hosting with >> soft RAM limit - like the 40 MB webfaction account, then it is wise >> to bypass mod_python for media to avoid those nasty monday morning >> mails about exceeding your limits and upgrading your account. This >> applies to sites of even 5-10 hits a day. Note, I am not criticising >> webfaction - they rock. > > To perhaps clarify on what I believe you are saying so people don't > get the wrong impression, it is not about not using mod_python, but > configuring Apache to serve the static files directly, rather than > using Python functionality within a specific framework to return them. yes - precisely what I am saying -- regards kg http://lawgon.livejournal.com http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Django deployment options
On Sep 20, 12:52 pm, Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 20-Sep-07, at 8:09 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote: > > > All those warnings about using the same Apache to serve static > > documents as Django are generally totally meaningless to the average > > user. This is because the load on an average Apache site is no where > > near enough for it to be of concern. > > one caveat here - if you are running a site on shared hosting with > soft RAM limit - like the 40 MB webfaction account, then it is wise > to bypass mod_python for media to avoid those nasty monday morning > mails about exceeding your limits and upgrading your account. This > applies to sites of even 5-10 hits a day. Note, I am not criticising > webfaction - they rock. To perhaps clarify on what I believe you are saying so people don't get the wrong impression, it is not about not using mod_python, but configuring Apache to serve the static files directly, rather than using Python functionality within a specific framework to return them. This applies to mod_wsgi as well as mod_python. As an example, for mod_wsgi, you would use the following configuration to ensure that media files are served directly by Apache and not by Django (if so configured). Alias /media/ /usr/local/django/mysite/media/ Order deny,allow Allow from all WSGIScriptAlias / /usr/local/django/mysite/apache/django.wsgi Order deny,allow Allow from all In other words, Apache directly serves static files under the media directly and Django is not involved. The reason for doing this is that often Python web frameworks will read in a complete static file in order to return it. Thus the complete files contents are in memory. Worse is that with mod_python, since this is a Python string object, in order for Apache to be able to output it through its output filtering system, it is necessary to copy it into Apache managed memory. The result is that your memory use then increases to two times the size of the file. This might be avoided to a degree if the underlying WSGI framework being used supports the wsgi.file_wrapper extension and the Python framework actually uses it. Even then, the WSGI adapter may still need to be integrated quite well with the web server, to avoid having to still read the file contents into memory, even if a bit at a time, and avoid the double memory overhead for each block. In short you avoid all of these problems by ensuring that you never have the Python web framework serve static files, instead, use the appropriate Alias/Directory Apache directives to have Apache serve them for you. Memory use will not be an issue in this instance as Apache will send the file in blocks and flush out a block before sending the next block. The only thing that would generally upset this would be if there was an Apache output filter installed which was needing to buffer up the whole file contents, or more than a single block in order to do something. Anyway, hope this explains things a bit better as to what the advice was about and why it was given. Graham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Django deployment options
On 20-Sep-07, at 8:09 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote: > All those warnings about using the same Apache to serve static > documents as Django are generally totally meaningless to the average > user. This is because the load on an average Apache site is no where > near enough for it to be of concern. one caveat here - if you are running a site on shared hosting with soft RAM limit - like the 40 MB webfaction account, then it is wise to bypass mod_python for media to avoid those nasty monday morning mails about exceeding your limits and upgrading your account. This applies to sites of even 5-10 hits a day. Note, I am not criticising webfaction - they rock. -- regards kg http://lawgon.livejournal.com http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Django deployment options
On Sep 20, 10:28 am, Steve Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Django can be run fine under Apache 1.3 using mod_wsgi. > > > The only issue is whether they do really allow you to add additional > > Apache modules to the installation. > > > Graham > > This is interesting... It is possible to install additional modules > with cpanel, it just makes updating for new releases of Apache a > little more complicated. > > Do you know where I might find any more information about installing > Django with mod_wsgi? On the mod_wsgi web site at 'http://www.modwsgi.org'. In particular: http://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/wiki/IntegrationWithDjango but you should ensure you look through the introductory material on configuration first to get a feel in general for how to setup mod_wsgi. Graham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Django deployment options
On Sep 20, 12:16 pm, Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 20-Sep-07, at 12:23 AM, Steve Potter wrote: > > > I'm already quite sure I don't want to install mod_python on the > > existing Apache after reading all of the warnings about using the same > > Apache to serve static documents and Django. > > I am not sure exactly what you mean by this. mod_python is the > preferred way to go. The only thing is that static content/media will > go directly to apache bypassing mod_python. The 'warnings' are only > to help you to improve performance. Just performance, nothing evil > will happen if you serve those through mod_python. All those warnings about using the same Apache to serve static documents as Django are generally totally meaningless to the average user. This is because the load on an average Apache site is no where near enough for it to be of concern. Problem is that people like to run these benchmarks looking at raw low level performance and because lighttpd shows better static file performance that it must therefore be better to farm off the static file requests. Reality is that the bottle neck for your application is going to be the Python code and database access. This is going to slow down the user experience immensely more than how quick your static files are served up. So, unless you know you are going to be running a web site with huge numbers of hits a day, it is probably reasonably safe to totally ignore such warnings. If you are going to run a large site with a lot of hits, you shouldn't be listening to such hearsay and should instead be doing your own proper benchmarking with the particular hardware you intend using. From that you are more likely to look at using multiple machines and a proper front end distributed load balancing solution than toying with trying to run lighttpd and Apache together with Apache proxying static requests to lighttpd. In general it just isn't going to be worth the effort. Now I now that some are likely to disagree with this. Well all I can say is show me the proper analysis and benchmarking that it makes any difference for your average web site. There may be some anecdotal comments about this on the net, but finding some real substance to such claims is much harder to come by. In summary, go with what is ever the easiest for you to setup and manage and does what you need. When your web site takes off and looks like it will become the next greatest thing, then you might revisit it, but you will go a long way with a simple setup before needing anything more complicated. In the meantime, concentrate on optimising your Python application first and reducing its bottlenecks. Graham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Django deployment options
On 20-Sep-07, at 12:23 AM, Steve Potter wrote: > I'm already quite sure I don't want to install mod_python on the > existing Apache after reading all of the warnings about using the same > Apache to serve static documents and Django. I am not sure exactly what you mean by this. mod_python is the preferred way to go. The only thing is that static content/media will go directly to apache bypassing mod_python. The 'warnings' are only to help you to improve performance. Just performance, nothing evil will happen if you serve those through mod_python. -- regards kg http://lawgon.livejournal.com http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Django deployment options
> > Django can be run fine under Apache 1.3 using mod_wsgi. > > The only issue is whether they do really allow you to add additional > Apache modules to the installation. > > Graham This is interesting... It is possible to install additional modules with cpanel, it just makes updating for new releases of Apache a little more complicated. Do you know where I might find any more information about installing Django with mod_wsgi? Thanks Steven Potter --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Django deployment options
> > 5. Use a different server. > > Unless you are on what cPanel calls the bleeding edge, you're running > Apache 1.3 which is useless for serving Django. That leaves you with > either #3 or #4. #3 has issues because cPanel wants to bind Apache to > all IP addresses. I had issues (though I didn't troubleshoot them > throuroughly) with changing httpd.conf to only attach to specific IPs. > #4 is inefficient and a pain to maintain. I'm moving all my Django > apps to Slicehost because the cPanel setup is so ugly. > Cpanel has actually released Apache 2.0 and 2.2 on Current, and will be following shortly with Release and stable. So I suspect that there will be a growing number of requests to integrate Django with a Cpanel managed server. I know that Cpanel can cause some problems trying to bind Apache to all of the IP addresses, but I believe it is possible to override that behavior. So if I decide to go with option 4 and install a second http server, what is the advantage of lighttpd over a second copy of Apache? Thanks, Steven Potter --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Django deployment options
On Sep 20, 8:03 am, "Peter Baumgartner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/19/07, Steve Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I currently have a dedicated server running a Cpanel installation with > > several virtual hosts. I would like to install Django on this server > > and as far as I can tell, I have several options. > > > 1. Add mod_python to existing Apache installation > > 2. Add FastCGI to existing Apache installation > > 3. Install secondary server (another installation of apache lighttpd, > > etc..) bound to another ip address for Django > > 4. Same as above, but instead of a different ip address use localhost > > and install mod_proxy on existing Apache. > > 5. Use a different server. > > Unless you are on what cPanel calls the bleeding edge, you're running > Apache 1.3 which is useless for serving Django. Django can be run fine under Apache 1.3 using mod_wsgi. The only issue is whether they do really allow you to add additional Apache modules to the installation. Graham --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Django deployment options
On 9/19/07, Steve Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I currently have a dedicated server running a Cpanel installation with > several virtual hosts. I would like to install Django on this server > and as far as I can tell, I have several options. > > 1. Add mod_python to existing Apache installation > 2. Add FastCGI to existing Apache installation > 3. Install secondary server (another installation of apache lighttpd, > etc..) bound to another ip address for Django > 4. Same as above, but instead of a different ip address use localhost > and install mod_proxy on existing Apache. > 5. Use a different server. Unless you are on what cPanel calls the bleeding edge, you're running Apache 1.3 which is useless for serving Django. That leaves you with either #3 or #4. #3 has issues because cPanel wants to bind Apache to all IP addresses. I had issues (though I didn't troubleshoot them throuroughly) with changing httpd.conf to only attach to specific IPs. #4 is inefficient and a pain to maintain. I'm moving all my Django apps to Slicehost because the cPanel setup is so ugly. If you do go this route, I'd highly recommend using daemontools to manage your django FCGI processes. It has served me well. You may also find this helpful http://coderseye.com/2007/lighttpd-on-cpanel-vps.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Django deployment options
I currently have a dedicated server running a Cpanel installation with several virtual hosts. I would like to install Django on this server and as far as I can tell, I have several options. 1. Add mod_python to existing Apache installation 2. Add FastCGI to existing Apache installation 3. Install secondary server (another installation of apache lighttpd, etc..) bound to another ip address for Django 4. Same as above, but instead of a different ip address use localhost and install mod_proxy on existing Apache. I'm already quite sure I don't want to install mod_python on the existing Apache after reading all of the warnings about using the same Apache to serve static documents and Django. I am interested in pros and cons of the different options as well as any options I may have missed. I would also like to know what others have tried. Thanks, Steven Potter --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
