Lukasz Szybalski schrieb: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Christopher Arndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Lukasz Szybalski schrieb: >>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Sanjay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I don't think you want to reverse proxy in high traffic site. You use >>> mod_wsgi to run your TG app inside of apache. Apache thread takes care >>> of the whole thing. >>> >>> http://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/wiki/PerformanceEstimates >> Since the page you refer to does not include a reverse proxy setup in >> the comparison, I wonder, how you come to this conclusion? Any evidence >> that mod_wsgi is faster than a reverse proxy setup? > > quote from: > http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2007/07/web-hosting-landscape-and-modwsgi.html > > "Running applications in the Apache child processes would generally > always result in the best performance possible when compared to other > alternatives available for using Python with Apache such as > mod_fastcgi and mod_scgi or even a second web server behind mod_proxy. > This is because the Python application is running in the same process > that is accepting and performing the initial parsing of the request > from a client. In other words, overhead is as low as it can be as > everything is done together in the one process." > > You could probobly get in touch with Graham, and ask him to add > reverse proxy to the list.
<snip/> I still fail to see how this relates to reverse proxying? Might it be that you don't know what that actually is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_proxy It has nothing to do with mod_proxy. Diez --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
