There is no reason why the wsgi app container matters. This is simply a "we
should document use if uwsgi and/or gunicorn as an alternative to mod_wsgi". If
one solution is better for the gate it will be used there and each deployment
will make the determination of what they want to use. Adam's p
On 09/25/2015 07:09 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk wrote:
Hi,
Morgan gave the perfect case why operators want to use uWSGI. Let's
imagine a future when all openstack services will work as mod_wsgi
processes under apache. It's like to put all eggs in one basket. If
you need to reconfigure one service o
OK, sorry I mixed up nginx and uwsgi :)
A.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:54 PM, David Stanek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:25 AM Adam Heczko wrote:
>
>> Are we discussing mod_wsgi and Keystone or OpenStack as a general?
>> If Keystone specific use case, then probably Apache provides broades
David,
I am thinking how all OpenStack components may coexist as mod_wsgi
processes under apache. In Fuel we stepped into problem with deployment
using graceful restart [1] thus this thread was raised to have a good WSGI
alternatives.
[1] https://github.com/GrahamDumpleton/mod_wsgi/pull/95
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:25 AM Adam Heczko wrote:
> Are we discussing mod_wsgi and Keystone or OpenStack as a general?
> If Keystone specific use case, then probably Apache provides broadest
> choice of tested external authenticators.
> I'm not against uwsgi at all, but to be honest expectation
Are we discussing mod_wsgi and Keystone or OpenStack as a general?
If Keystone specific use case, then probably Apache provides broadest
choice of tested external authenticators.
I'm not against uwsgi at all, but to be honest expectation that nginx could
substitute Apache in terms of authentication
Alexandr,
oauth, shibboleth & openid support are very keystone specific features.
Many other openstack projects don't need these modules at all but they may
require faster HTTP server (lighthttp/nginx).
For all projects we may use "HTTP server -> uwsgi" model and leave apache
for keystone as " HT
Hi,
Morgan gave the perfect case why operators want to use uWSGI. Let's imagine
a future when all openstack services will work as mod_wsgi processes under
apache. It's like to put all eggs in one basket. If you need to reconfigure
one service on controller it may affect another service. For instan
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Vladimir Kuklin
wrote:
> I just suggested to untie keystone from wsgi and implement uwsgi support.
> And then let the user decide what he or she wants.
>
Keystone is not tied to Apache or mod_wsgi, if that's what you mean. We
provide a sample configuration for Ap
> comparing to amount of work to make that happen.
>
>
> Guang
>
>
> From: Vladimir Kuklin [mailto:vkuk...@mirantis.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 9:09 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: [openstack-dev] Apache2
ripping out Apache,
comparing to amount of work to make that happen.
Guang
From: Vladimir Kuklin [mailto:vkuk...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 9:09 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: [openstack-dev] Apache2 vs uWSGI vs ...
Folks
I just
2015 7:04 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Apache2 vs uWSGI vs ...
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 06:48:50PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > In the fuel project, we recently ran into a couple of issues with
> Apach
I thoughts below mention Keystone, but in reality I would apply the same
logic to any OpenStack service.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Boris Bobrov wrote:
> There are 2 dimensions this discussion should happen in: web server and
> application server. Now we use apache2 as web server and mod
From: Jim Rollenhagen [j...@jimrollenhagen.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 7:04 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Apache2 vs uWSGI vs ...
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 06:48:50PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> In the f
There are 2 dimensions this discussion should happen in: web server and
application server. Now we use apache2 as web server and mod_wsgi as app
server.
I don't have a specific opinion on the app server (mod_wsgi vs uwsgi) and I
don't really care.
Regarding apache2 vs nginx. I don't see any re
Please consider that we use some apache mods - does
nginx/uwsgi/gunicorn have oauth, shibboleth & openid support?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Vladimir Kuklin wrote:
> Folks
>
> I think we do not need to switch to nginx-only or consider any kind of war
> between nginx and apache adherents. Ev
On 18/09/15 06:44 -0700, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
There is and has been desire to support uWSGI and other alternatives to
mod_wsgi. There are a variety of operational reasons to consider uWSGI and/or
gunicorn behind apache most notably to facilitate easier management of the
processes independently
Folks
I think we do not need to switch to nginx-only or consider any kind of war
between nginx and apache adherents. Everyone should be able to use
web-server he or she needs without being pinned to the unwanted one. It is
like Postgres vs MySQL war. Why not support both?
May be someone does not
There is and has been desire to support uWSGI and other alternatives to
mod_wsgi. There are a variety of operational reasons to consider uWSGI and/or
gunicorn behind apache most notably to facilitate easier management of the
processes independently of the webserver itself. With mod_wsgi the proc
On 09/17/2015 10:04 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 06:48:50PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
In the fuel project, we recently ran into a couple of issues with Apache2 +
mod_wsgi as we switched Keystone to run . Please see [1] and [2].
Looking deep into Apache2 issues specifi
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 06:48:50PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> In the fuel project, we recently ran into a couple of issues with Apache2 +
> mod_wsgi as we switched Keystone to run . Please see [1] and [2].
>
> Looking deep into Apache2 issues specifically around "apache2ctl graceful"
> and m
On 09/17/2015 06:48 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
In the fuel project, we recently ran into a couple of issues with
Apache2 + mod_wsgi as we switched Keystone to run . Please see [1] and
[2].
Looking deep into Apache2 issues specifically around "apache2ctl
graceful" and module loading/unloading
In the Fuel project, we recently ran into few issues with Apache2 +
mod_wsgi as we switched Keystone to run in that environment and we started
a large battery of tests and ended up seeing these issues. Please see [1]
and [2] for examples.
Looking deep into Apache2 issues specifically around "apach
In the fuel project, we recently ran into a couple of issues with Apache2 +
mod_wsgi as we switched Keystone to run . Please see [1] and [2].
Looking deep into Apache2 issues specifically around "apache2ctl graceful"
and module loading/unloading and the hooks used by mod_wsgi [3]. I started
wonder
24 matches
Mail list logo
