Oh, and what about memcache? Can web2py benefit from it? Is there somewhere an explanation about this?
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Arnon Marcus <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >> -- >> >> >> >> > > --
