On 8/26/06, Damjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As I said, it's only serving static content, there is no application.
> And lighttpd only uses "mod_alias", "mod_access", "mod_accesslog".
>
> My point was that the memory leak is not in the core of lighttpd but in
> some of it's modules. Since the
Sanjay wrote:
> - flup is not available? Does it imply we can no more have SCGI/WSGI
> configuration?
It is now available... Sadd's website was offline then...
> - Any tutorial/guidance on how to configure SCGI/WSGI with Nginex would
> help.
No tutorial that I know of, but between:
http://www
Thanks for all the posts in this thread, would be vitally useful to me.
Some real novice questions:
- flup is not available? Does it imply we can no more have SCGI/WSGI
configuration?
- As with LightTPD, will SCGI/WSGI be faster compared to simple
proxying in NgineX?
- Any tutorial/guidance on ho
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 18:44 -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 15:43 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> > The only solution I know of that's extremely high performance that
> > offers all of the features that you want is nginx [2], but its
> > documentation is largely in Russian. I can
As I said, it's only serving static content, there is no application.
And lighttpd only uses "mod_alias", "mod_access", "mod_accesslog".
My point was that the memory leak is not in the core of lighttpd but in
some of it's modules. Since there is a choice which module to use to
connect to WSGI app
Hi Damjan,
Could you pl. list the lighty modules you have running
in your app. If possible, if you could also provide snippets
of your lighttpd.conf file, it would be useful.
Thanks,
/venkat
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscri
Interesting, I have an instance of lighttpd serving only static files
for more than month and a half and it's total memory usage is less than
5MB.
So it must be same of the modules you used?
mod_scgi or mod_proxy?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 15:43 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> The only solution I know of that's extremely high performance that
> offers all of the features that you want is nginx [2], but its
> documentation is largely in Russian. I can't read Russian, but I was
> able to figure it out (the configur
Bob,
Thanks for that insight :-)
I somehow got the impression lighty was the rage these days, second
only to apache. With this kink of a leak issue, unclear how it attained
that position ;!)
Will give nginx a try. Thanks.
/venkat
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You receiv
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 15:43 -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> The only solution I know of that's extremely high performance that
> offers all of the features that you want is nginx [2], but its
> documentation is largely in Russian. I can't read Russian, but I was
> able to figure it out (the configur
One problem with Lighty is that it leaks memory like a sieve [1]. I
audited it for a little bit and I gave up, it's a mess. I'd steer
clear of it, it will quickly ruin your day if you throw a lot of
traffic at it.
The only solution I know of that's extremely high performance that
offers all of th
Thanks Cliff, for your observations.
Basically, I needed to provide support for:
- HTTP/1.1
- SSL (openssl)
- (Fast)CGI
- chroot()
- sessions
- static content
I thought lighty would be providing all except the sessions part,
which I was hoping to make it disk/file-based. The #
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 12:36 -0700, venkatbo wrote:
> What I need is all the extra http functionality lighty provides over
> and above what CherryPy (TG) can provide.
Sorry, somehow in my haste to reply I didn't see that last sentence:
what functionality are you hoping for?
Cliff
--
--~--~
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 12:36 -0700, venkatbo wrote:
> Thanks Cliff.
>
> I just checked out Pound. May be I'm missing something, but other
> than Load Balancing & Reverse Proxy, I don't see it offering anything
> more than what lighty alone can already do as per:
> http://www.turbogears.org/previ
Thanks Cliff.
I just checked out Pound. May be I'm missing something, but other
than Load Balancing & Reverse Proxy, I don't see it offering anything
more than what lighty alone can already do as per:
http://www.turbogears.org/preview/docs/deployment/lighttpd.html#proxy
I'll not be building a
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 11:11 -0700, venkatbo wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Since flup is not *available* for some reason, Im looking to evaluating
> lighttpd as a simple proxy to TG, based on the steps in:
> http://www.turbogears.org/preview/docs/deployment/lighttpd.html#proxy
>
> Could anyone tell me
16 matches
Mail list logo