On Mar 26, 12:41 am, Oli Warner <o...@thepcspy.com> wrote:
> David, slightly off-topic, but you should see some impressive gains if you
> move your static handling off Apache onto something lighter
> (Cherokee/Lighttpd/nginx/etc) and reverse-proxy the dynamic stuff through to
> a localhost-bound Apache.
>
> Hell, I use Cherokee for dynamic content too (via django's SCGI output).
> Uses a tiny amount of resources compared to the Apache+mod_python setup I
> was using.
A lot of the problems people have with mod_python and excessive memory
usage are because they don't change Apache default MPM settings,
especially if they use prefork MPM. See:
http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2009/03/load-spikes-and-excessive-memory-usage.html
It is rather obvious that if you leave Apache to be able to create
huge numbers of worker processes that you are then going to end up
with an equal number of Django instances and therefore a lot of memory
being used.
Graham
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:20 PM, David Holstius
> <david.holst...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > We're migratingwww.gigapan.orgto Django (was: PHP/Smarty) on a page-
> > by-page basis. We have a high read/write ratio, so judicious caching
> > solves most of our scaling issues in the realm of dynamic web content.
> > Most of our stress comes from serving static imagery. So, let me
> > qualify that: we have Django running on some otherwise maxed-out
> > servers and it is performing extremely reliably.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
