On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: > Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com>: > >> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: >>> Roy Smith <r...@panix.com>: >>> IOW, the processes are there to exercise the CPUs and should not >>> represent individual connections or other dynamic entities. >> >> That's potentially brutal on a shared system! I hope it's controlled >> by an option, or that you do this only in something you're writing for >> yourself alone. > > I'm thinking of a dedicated system here and exploiting the available CPU > resources as efficiently as possible.
Huh. I don't remember the last time I worked on any system that could be dedicated to one single job. My servers are all carrying multiple services (HTTP, SMTP, IMAP, DNS, database, maybe a MUD or two...), my desktop computer doubles as a router and a VM host and a server for a few internal things (the NIV 1984 translation of the Bible is hosted there, for convenience, as is my RSS reader), etc, etc, etc. Ages since I've had enough physical hardware that I can afford to say "You're *just* the XYZ server and nothing else". At very least, I'll usually want to have some spare CPU cycles so I can plop a backup service on there (eg a PostgreSQL replicating clone, or a fail-over HTTP server, or a secondary DNS), but mainly, I've been working for the past however-many years under budget constraints. Oh the luxury of a dedicated application server. But that's why I said "writing for yourself alone", or govern it with an option. For any sort of general server software, it should be able to cope with a shared system. (And that should probably be the default - anyone who's running a dedicated system will normally already be aware that most programs need to be tweaked before you get maximum throughput out of them.) ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
