> >> The stack they have used is quite interesting. Although they are using >> Apache w/ mod_wsgi (which tends to be a lot slower than using nginx with >> uwsgi), they still seem to have got some decent performance out of it. > > > Indeed, it's on the to-do list to try comparing the performance of > Apache/mod_wsgi with nginx/uwsgi, but my gut feel is that the webserver + > WSGI container makes only a marginal difference to the overall site > performance. Of course, I Could Be Wrong. > >> >>
After 2 years of continuous development on uWSGI, i can confirm you that performance impact is pratically non-existent (most of the time, when you see extreme favorable benchmark for uWSGI/gunicorn/fapws/flup/.../ against mod_wsgi they are caused by the lack of apache skills of the guy doing the benchmark) Obviously you can tune uWSGI a little bit more that the others, but what is the purpose of gaining 3% on a Hello World ? As a proof, gunicorn and fapws, even if being coded in pure python are perfectly comparable in performance with c-based solutions. "Benchmarkers" should focus on other things (even ease-of-use if they want uWSGI to poorly lose, or on all the other things if they want uWSGI to easily win :P) So, stop wasting time measuring already discovered things :) -- Roberto De Ioris http://unbit.it -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
