Re: actual django stack
On Sep 28, 10:47 am, Jeremy Sandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 26, 1:25 pm, David Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I've also heard good things about WSGI -- though I haven't heavily > > tested its stability compared to, say,mod_python. > > --- > > David Zhou > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > FWIW, WSGI has thus far worked wonderfully for me, and using daemon > mode has solved numerous issues of running Django in a shared hosting > environment. Being able to simply "touch /path/to/project/django.wsgi" > instead of restarting Apache is a nice bonus, as well. (: You do realise that 'WSGI' is a specification only and not a piece of software. The Apache module which provides support for WSGI is called 'mod_wsgi', you shouldn't be referring to it as just WSGI and it is starting to get quite annoying that people continue to just refer to it as WSGI instead. In some respect, because the nginx guy also confusingly refers to his part port of mod_wsgi for Apache to nginx as mod_wsgi as well and didn't give it a different name, then you probably want to be explicit and say Apache/mod_wsgi or nginx/mod_wsgi so people know what you are talking about. BTW, as WSGI is just a specification, you can also run WSGI applications on other hosting mechanisms such as CGI, FASTCGI, SCGI, AJP, Passenger, mod_python etc, etc. 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: actual django stack
On Sep 26, 1:25 pm, David Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've also heard good things about WSGI -- though I haven't heavily > tested its stability compared to, say, mod_python. > --- > David Zhou > [EMAIL PROTECTED] FWIW, WSGI has thus far worked wonderfully for me, and using daemon mode has solved numerous issues of running Django in a shared hosting environment. Being able to simply "touch /path/to/project/django.wsgi" instead of restarting Apache is a nice bonus, as well. (: --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: actual django stack
On Sep 26, 2008, at 5:54 AM, Peter Bengtsson wrote: > On Sep 25, 8:41 pm, "Frédéric Sidler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> What it the best Django stack today. >> >> In django doc, it says that apache with mod_python is the best >> solution in production. But in the same time I see that everyblock >> use >> nginx (probably in mode fastcgi). >> >> Did you some of you test different solution and can share some >> output here. >> >> Here are the ones I see actually >> >> Apache mod_python >> Apache in fastcgi mode >> Lighttpd in fastcgi mode >> Nginx in fastcgi mode >> > > I've noticed a small performance boost from using Nginx + fcgi > compared to Apache + mod_python and I hear that Nginx is also a better > performer on the static content but haven't personally experienced > that but the blogosphere will probably agree that Nginx is faster. > The benefit to us with Apache is that we have more knowledge about it > within the team but this only matters when you do more complicated > stuff such as advanced authentication stuff or additional security > hardening. This will probably be the case for many teams since Nginx > is so new. I've also heard good things about WSGI -- though I haven't heavily tested its stability compared to, say, mod_python. --- David Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: actual django stack
On Sep 25, 8:41 pm, "Frédéric Sidler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What it the best Django stack today. > > In django doc, it says that apache with mod_python is the best > solution in production. But in the same time I see that everyblock use > nginx (probably in mode fastcgi). > > Did you some of you test different solution and can share some output here. > > Here are the ones I see actually > > Apache mod_python > Apache in fastcgi mode > Lighttpd in fastcgi mode > Nginx in fastcgi mode > I've noticed a small performance boost from using Nginx + fcgi compared to Apache + mod_python and I hear that Nginx is also a better performer on the static content but haven't personally experienced that but the blogosphere will probably agree that Nginx is faster. The benefit to us with Apache is that we have more knowledge about it within the team but this only matters when you do more complicated stuff such as advanced authentication stuff or additional security hardening. This will probably be the case for many teams since Nginx is so new. When I last evaluated whether to go for Nginx or Lighttpd I remember seeing a lot of concern for Lighttpd's stability. The blogosphere talked about seg faults and slightly higer footprint than Nginx. > I'm not talking about load balancer, memcached and database here, just > the application. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: actual django stack
I'm using django on Amazon EC2. And Django does not serve any static files. Actually they are stored on S3 and we plan to use Amazon new CDN functionnalities for that. So I'm trying to find the best solution for serving dynamic files on instances with 2GB of RAM. These instances are running Django ONLY. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: actual django stack
I use both, apache mod_python to server django code and nginx at port 80 to serve just media and static files. - Original Message - From: "Frédéric Sidler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:41 PM Subject: actual django stack > > What it the best Django stack today. > > In django doc, it says that apache with mod_python is the best > solution in production. But in the same time I see that everyblock use > nginx (probably in mode fastcgi). > > Did you some of you test different solution and can share some output > here. > > Here are the ones I see actually > > Apache mod_python > Apache in fastcgi mode > Lighttpd in fastcgi mode > Nginx in fastcgi mode > > I'm not talking about load balancer, memcached and database here, just > the application. > > > > > -- > Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema de antivírus e > acredita-se estar livre de perigo. > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: actual django stack
Frédéric Sidler wrote: > What it the best Django stack today. > > In django doc, it says that apache with mod_python is the best > solution in production. But in the same time I see that everyblock use > nginx (probably in mode fastcgi). > > Did you some of you test different solution and can share some output here. > > Here are the ones I see actually > > Apache mod_python > Apache in fastcgi mode > Lighttpd in fastcgi mode > Nginx in fastcgi mode > > I'm not talking about load balancer, memcached and database here, just > the application. "Best" for what? Best has different meaning for different needs. If you know enough to ask this question you should know enough to answer it for your particular situation. Apache and mod_python is probably the easiest/most common/most tested and therefor probably the best to recommend to Djangonista's just starting out. And you forgot wsgi options ;) -- Norman J. Harman Jr. Senior Web Specialist, Austin American-Statesman ___ Get off the sidelines and huddle up with the Statesman all season long for complete high school, college and pro coverage in print and online! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: actual django stack
Frédéric Sidler wrote: > What it the best Django stack today. > > In django doc, it says that apache with mod_python is the best > solution in production. But in the same time I see that everyblock use > nginx (probably in mode fastcgi). > > Did you some of you test different solution and can share some output here. > > Here are the ones I see actually > > Apache mod_python > Apache in fastcgi mode > Lighttpd in fastcgi mode > Nginx in fastcgi mode > I've only used Django with apache/mod_python in production. At work we are considering moving to lighttpd with fastcgi. I've played with fastcgi, and it seems like just as solid of a solution as mod_python. For apache, mod_wsgi has/will supercede mod_python. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
