John Nagle wrote: > Graham Dumpleton wrote: > > On Feb 4, 1:05 pm, Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>"Paul Boddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >>>Probably the biggest inhibitor, as far as I can see, has been the > >>>server technology chosen. Many hosting providers have historically > >>>offered no better than CGI for Python, whilst PHP runs within Apache > >>>itself, and it has previously been stated that mod_python has been > >>>undesirable with regard to isolating processes from each other. > >>>Consequently, a number of Python people seem to have held out for > >>>other "high performance" solutions, which various companies now offer. > >> > >>Your point that shared hosting with Python isn't so easy because of > >>insufficient isolation between apps is valid. Maybe Python 3.0 can do > >>something about that and it seems like a valid thing to consider while > >>fleshing out the 3.0 design. > > > > > > To clarify some points about mod_python, since these posts do not > > properly explain the reality of the situation and I feel people are > > getting the wrong impression. > > > > First off, when using mod_python it is possible to have it create > > multiple sub interpreters within each Apache child process. > > Realistically, mod_python is a dead end for large servers, > because Python isn't really multi-threaded. The Global Python > Lock means that a multi-core CPU won't help performance.
The GIL doesn't affect seperate processes, and any large server that cares about stability is going to be running a pre-forking MPM no matter what language they're supporting. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
