On Sep 20, 12:52 pm, Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 20-Sep-07, at 8:09 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote: > > > All those warnings about using the same Apache to serve static > > documents as Django are generally totally meaningless to the average > > user. This is because the load on an average Apache site is no where > > near enough for it to be of concern. > > one caveat here - if you are running a site on shared hosting with > soft RAM limit - like the 40 MB webfaction account, then it is wise > to bypass mod_python for media to avoid those nasty monday morning > mails about exceeding your limits and upgrading your account. This > applies to sites of even 5-10 hits a day. Note, I am not criticising > webfaction - they rock.
To perhaps clarify on what I believe you are saying so people don't get the wrong impression, it is not about not using mod_python, but configuring Apache to serve the static files directly, rather than using Python functionality within a specific framework to return them. This applies to mod_wsgi as well as mod_python. As an example, for mod_wsgi, you would use the following configuration to ensure that media files are served directly by Apache and not by Django (if so configured). Alias /media/ /usr/local/django/mysite/media/ <Directory /usr/local/django/mysite/media> Order deny,allow Allow from all </Directory> WSGIScriptAlias / /usr/local/django/mysite/apache/django.wsgi <Directory /usr/local/django/mysite/apache> Order deny,allow Allow from all </Directory> In other words, Apache directly serves static files under the media directly and Django is not involved. The reason for doing this is that often Python web frameworks will read in a complete static file in order to return it. Thus the complete files contents are in memory. Worse is that with mod_python, since this is a Python string object, in order for Apache to be able to output it through its output filtering system, it is necessary to copy it into Apache managed memory. The result is that your memory use then increases to two times the size of the file. This might be avoided to a degree if the underlying WSGI framework being used supports the wsgi.file_wrapper extension and the Python framework actually uses it. Even then, the WSGI adapter may still need to be integrated quite well with the web server, to avoid having to still read the file contents into memory, even if a bit at a time, and avoid the double memory overhead for each block. In short you avoid all of these problems by ensuring that you never have the Python web framework serve static files, instead, use the appropriate Alias/Directory Apache directives to have Apache serve them for you. Memory use will not be an issue in this instance as Apache will send the file in blocks and flush out a block before sending the next block. The only thing that would generally upset this would be if there was an Apache output filter installed which was needing to buffer up the whole file contents, or more than a single block in order to do something. Anyway, hope this explains things a bit better as to what the advice was about and why it was given. Graham --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
