Il giorno 18/apr/2012, alle ore 11:11, Gour ha scritto: > On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:54:29 +0200 > "Roberto De Ioris" <robe...@unbit.it> wrote: > >> By the way, it is pretty strange you found 'threading' support a >> uwsgi-blocker as very few (maybe 3-4, uWSGI included) production-grade >> WSGI servers seriously supports them (with mod_wsgi having the better >> implementation for sure). > > What method/server would you recommend for running few smaller > low-traffic web2py-powered sites on a host which allows me to use > 100MB & 50 processes, iow. memory is the bottleneck? > > I'm looking into uwsgi, but wonder if there is something better > memory-wise? >
I am the one you are already talking about it on irc :) By the way uWSGI is for sure the one consuming less memory (in relation to features you get) in the group of preforking/multithreaded servers. You can even rebuild it removing all of the unneeded features. It is built expecially for shared hosting with limited processes/threads and memory so you will find options to limit its memory or to trigger reload on specific conditions (or exceptions). Obviously it has a very high learning curve, so be prepared for some headache (but it will payback for sure). Another popular solution (in pure python this time) is gunicorn, it is in the spirit "do only one thing, do it well", so from a programmer point of view it is a lot more appealing than uWSGI (that is sysadmins-oriented). It has no threads support, so you have to rely on processes and some external tool if you want to monitor/manage your app. -- Roberto De Ioris http://unbit.it JID: robe...@jabber.unbit.it
