10x for clearing things out - you're right, I didn't do too much resource on uwsgi, and just assumed that it is, for nginx. what mod_wsgi is for apache. So I guess I had it wrong. My current (soon to be "old") setup is running apache + mod_wsgi on windows 7, so I know all about the headaches that comes from setting this up... I would be more than glad to put apache behind me for good, if it would offer not performance improvements to this script's setup the way it does for php...
On that note, how exactly is uwsgi handling web2py processes, as would be configured in this script? Is it easily customizable after the fact? Are there any any pros/cons for different scenarios that one should be aware of? On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Niphlod <[email protected]> wrote: > seems you missed a point.... uwsgi here is not a module, is an executable > that does one job and it does it well (actually, very well, and there's a > lot of it that can be used that is outside the scope of this script). > It could be used as a standalone highperformance webserver, but nginx is > placed in front of it to serve static files and to take care of Ddos > attacks. > > If you want to use apache behind nginx instead of uwsgi behind nginx > you're going basically to suffer wasted cpu, ram, a much harder to maintain > config. > If you want to run python on apache because it's your default webserver, > than mod_wsgi is the way to go. Have to install apache just to run python, > it's only a waste of resources. > > -- > > > > --
