My original concerns are eased, as I thought 120 people out of the 1000 that visited the site were getting errors [1], which seems to not be the case.
If I were to go to all of the trouble to install nginx, I might as well stop using apache and install cherokee. I have been running my blog on cherokee with no problems. Massimo, looks reasonable... we can always change it later. [1] the requests are unique visits, no robots included -- Thadeus On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Graham Dumpleton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On May 10, 3:11 pm, Thadeus Burgess <[email protected]> wrote: >> Looking at the sites analytics, there are roughly about 1000 requests >> a day, of which I will receive 100 of these tickets, give or take 20. > > If you want a quick solution, stick nginx in front as a proxy and you > likely would eliminate the errors. This is because nginx helps to > isolate you from slow clients and some of the problems they can cause. > You can also offload static file serving to nginx as well, speeding > that up and allowing you to use less resources in Apache to serve same > number of requests. > > I'll comment later when have time on Massimo's comments. > > Graham > >> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Thadeus Burgess <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > What if there was an IO error with cgi.FieldStorage ? >> >> > -- >> > Thadeus >> >> > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:06 AM, mdipierro <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> Yes. it is safe to ignore, but it still causes a minor slow down >> >> because web2py issues a ticket and that may be unnecessary. >> >> >> On May 10, 12:01 am, Thadeus Burgess <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> So you are saying that a user with a slow connection (which consists >> >>> of a large portion of the sites user base) clicks reload, so their >> >>> browser stops communicating with that request, so web2py catches it as >> >>> an IOError... so then is this safe to ignore? >> >> >>> Below is a log that I found in apache2.error.log >> >> >>> [Sun Jan 31 13:42:50 2010] [error] [client ******] (70007)The timeout >> >>> specified has expired: mod_wsgi (pid=3961): Unable to get bucket >> >>> brigade for request., referer:http://mysite.com/page1 >> >>> [Sun Jan 31 13:42:51 2010] [error] [client ******] mod_wsgi >> >>> (pid=3926): Exception occurred processing WSGI script >> >>> '/web2py/wsgihandler.py'. >> >>> [Sun Jan 31 13:42:51 2010] [error] [client ******] IOError: failed to >> >>> write data >> >> >>> -- >> >>> Thadeus >> >> >>> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Graham Dumpleton >> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> > On May 10, 1:51 pm, Thadeus Burgess <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> Ticket. I usually see them the next day when I check admin. >> >> >>> >> No, it is usually just one IP but it happens to a lot of people at the >> >>> >> same time, scaled by the amount of traffic being put on the server. >> >> >>> > Then it is likely that the ISP or network all the requests were routed >> >>> > by dropped all the connections for whatever reason. >> >> >>> >> Roughly about 10% of the requests generate this error. >> >> >>> >> > A user not waiting for a request to complete before clicking on >> >>> >> > another link or pressing reload. In other words, client dropped >> >>> >> > original connection. >> >> >>> >> Obviously this is a web2py issue then, because I don't have any >> >>> >> problems when I go click-happy on other web sites. >> >> >>> > Part of the problem is that there is no standard for what type of >> >>> > Python exception is generated by a dropped connection. The mod_python >> >>> > and mod_wsgi package so happens to use IOError, but different >> >>> > descriptions. Other WSGI servers are within their rights to use a >> >>> > completely different Python exception or yet another description >> >>> > against an IOError. Thus, it becomes really hard for a generic >> >>> > framework that can be hosted in various ways to make a judgement as to >> >>> > whether a failure on read was due to a particular type of error. Thus >> >>> > it becomes hard to ignore errors for loss of connection. You also by >> >>> > ignoring them, limit an applications ability to take some special >> >>> > action when connections are dropped. >> >> >>> > It therefore isn't obvious what to do and most Python frameworks will >> >>> > as a result just pass the exception up the stack and cause a 500 >> >>> > response. If you have a mailout option for errors back to system >> >>> > administrators then you obviously may get an lot of emails. Best you >> >>> > might do is for that mailout middleware to allow a user to supply >> >>> > their own rules, ie., exception types and desription regex, for things >> >>> > that should be ignored as far as mailout message to admin. >> >> >>> > Graham >> >> >>> >> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:55 PM, mdipierro <[email protected]> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >> > ure about the problem but I had a few instances of people >> >>> >> > clicking reload a lot (and I mean a lot). So I use thi >
