On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Jeffrey Zhang wrote:
> thanks mnaser and sam for the advice.
>
> i think uwsgi + native http is not a good solution, nova. A http
> server + uwsgi is better. So i am imaging that the deployment
> architecture will be like
>
> haproxy --> http server -> uwsgi_nova_a
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Jeffrey Zhang
wrote:
> thanks mnaser and sam for the advice.
>
> i think uwsgi + native http is not a good solution, nova. A http
> server + uwsgi is better. So i am imaging that the deployment
> architecture will be like
>
> haproxy --> http server -> uwsgi_nova_
thanks mnaser and sam for the advice.
i think uwsgi + native http is not a good solution, nova. A http
server + uwsgi is better. So i am imaging that the deployment
architecture will be like
haproxy --> http server -> uwsgi_nova_api / uwsgi_glance_api etc.
As mnaster said, one http server serve
I have been running api services behind uwsgi in http mode from Newton
forward. I recently switched to the uwsgi+nginx model with 2 containers
since I was having wierd issues with things that I couldn't track down.
Mainly after I started using keystone with ldap. There would be timeouts
and message
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Jeffrey Zhang wrote:
> We are moving to deploy service via WSGI[0].
>
> There are two recommended ways.
>
> - apache + mod_wsgi
> - nginx + uwsgi
>
> later one is more better.
>
> For traditional deployment, it is easy to implement. Use one
> uwsgi progress to lau
