2011/9/29 Yaniv Aknin <[email protected]>: > I don't think I explained myself well. > You're telling me to solve a problem which I think exists with the uwsgi > protocol, by doing stuff with the HTTP protocol. But the real way to solve > it is by augmenting the uwsgi protocol. I'm not talking about uWSGI adding a > "Content-Length" HTTP header, because indeed it can't know the true length > of the response and it shouldn't do the webserver's job. But I AM talking > about uWSGI adding a "uwsgi-content-length" header, because the uwsgi > protocol is up to uWSGI. > In other words, the type of failure I'm talking about can not happen in a > server like mod_wsgi, because it's in-process; there can be no communication > failure between mod_wsgi and Apache. However, uWSGI lives outside of nginx, > and has it's own protocol (which isn't HTTP, it just happens to look like > HTTP for the case of modifier1==72, with 'TT' length and 'P' modifier2). The > uwsgi protocol can and should protect against uwsgi-nginx failure, even if > the HTTP protocol didn't add Content-Length or chunked encoding yet (for > example, precisely because I want the webserver to handle this). > I hope this makes it clearer, > - Yaniv
Why should uwsgi add content-length because you application get killed? How can uWSGI add content-length if application produces infinity chunks with yield? How will 502 will help you in production more than incomplete request? Why should uwsgi protocol protect against uwsgi kill/crash? think of it - is there any protocol that protects you from just uplugging ethernet cable off? well ok with content-length you can know the length of body. so for how long nginx would wait for complete body? 1 minute? 5 minutes? 5 seconds? what if next yield is withing 6 second? Hmm it seems very strange to me that uwsgi should do buffering and discard chunked transfer encoding for the purpose of application that occasionally get killed. Why dont you do it right so it wont get killed? or maybe you application should provide content-length header? > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Roberto De Ioris <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > -- >> >> Obviously you can bypass the problem doing the cache write within the app >> itself (using memcached or something similar). Memcached is supported out >> of the box by nginx. >> >> -- >> Roberto De Ioris >> http://unbit.it >> _______________________________________________ >> uWSGI mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi > > > _______________________________________________ > uWSGI mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi > > -- -------------------------------------------- Турнаев Евгений Викторович +7 906 875 09 43 -------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list [email protected] http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
