On 10/3/05, Jimmie Houchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: ... > > an hour, but when a Django page gets farked and gets 100k hits in an > > hour I barely notice. Seriously - we got farked a few weeks ago and it > > wasn't until someone looked at our server stats the next day that I > > knew about it. > > Can you tell us what kind of hardware is supporting that 100k?
>From a different thread, Jacob answered: >On Sep 28, 2005, at 3:38 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: >> On 9/28/05, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> ...In case you hadn't noticed, Django has a pretty large memory >>> footprint; between Apache, mod_python, Python, the database drivers, >>> etc., Apache server processes tend to weigh about 10M each (at least >>> on my servers). >> >> I hadn't noticed. Do you just load up your web servers with memory, >> or do you (allow Apache to) throttle concurrent requests? > >Yes, and yes. Our current web servers have 2G of RAM, and our new >ones being ordered will have at least 4G. My philosophy has always >been that hardware is cheaper than programming time: 2G of RAM costs >about $100 these days, which corresponds to something around 2 hours >of programming time. > >> Does anyone have numbers on footprints for different servers? Any >> pointers to comparisons of request/process/thread models between >> various servers which support WSGI or mod_python? >> >> (If my tone sounds shrill, I'm just curious, not upset.) > >I don't have any hard numbers, but my impressions have been that >unless you need all the amazing stuff that Apache will do for you, >lighttpd+WSGI serves Django faster with a smaller memory footprint. >We will, however, be launching a new website in a month or so which >will most likely our first powered by lighty so hopefully at that >point I'll have some numbers to share; I'll certainly keep the list >posted.
