Hi,
I have written a small manifest that I would like to share with the
community.
I hope you like it and entertain you in these days of confinement.
If anyone is interested in contributing, you can do a fork and a pull
request.
English:
https://goinnn.github.io/zen-of-high-load-and-high
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:00 AM, sephii wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have an application made with Django 1.7 and the Django Rest
> Framework and I'm in the phase of load testing it. My setup is made of
> 3 servers:
>
> - Nginx + gunicorn
> - Gunicorn
> - Postgresql + Memcached
>
> Nginx is configured a
Hello,
I have an application made with Django 1.7 and the Django Rest
Framework and I'm in the phase of load testing it. My setup is made of
3 servers:
- Nginx + gunicorn
- Gunicorn
- Postgresql + Memcached
Nginx is configured as a loadbalancer so I can add more gunicorn
instances if needed. In
Cheng,
I use Linode and Gentoo as well ! I'm using Apache and MySQL, with
memcached.
I've spent a lot of time optimizing my setup, so I'm happy to help. The
two most important things for me were:
- Reduce database usage. Put some code in django.db.backends.postgresql
to print out all
在 2006-12-4，下午6:34，graham_king 写道：
> What web server are you using in development ? I suspect this
> might be
> a lighttpd / fastcgi problem. Have you tried Apache / mod_python ?
>
> Just as a reference I'm managing 90,000+ hits a day on one Apache
> on a
> UML virtual server, with the loa
On 12/6/06, Uros Trebec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That might be a good idea. It seams that PgSQL scales 200% percent
> better than MySQL (when using multiple processors/cores/machines.
>
> Take a look at this test ( http://tweakers.net/reviews/646/1 ). It's
> basically a CPU comparison but usin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] je napisal:
> We may test postgreSQL to see if this fixes our latest problem, as our
> SQL cluster isnt setup yet as the hoster didnt have it ready, and this
> is a peak traffic day.
That might be a good idea. It seams that PgSQL scales 200% percent
better than MySQL (when usi
On 12/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We tried Apache and it seemed slower. We're doing probably 1-2 million
> uniques today and the sessions are now killing the website :)
>
> This is on like 12 web servers now too.
It sounds like you must be I/O bound. What's your CPU ut
Let me add, that this could simply be SQL overloaded right now. We had
managed to get all the servers down to 2-4 load, sometimes a little
more. Problem was something related to python creating zombie
processes, and the other guy I worked with managed to find a solution.
We may test postgreSQL to
We tried Apache and it seemed slower. We're doing probably 1-2 million
uniques today and the sessions are now killing the website :)
This is on like 12 web servers now too.
On Dec 4, 11:42 am, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > We are running lighttpd with fa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We are running lighttpd with fastcgi in prefork mode. We tried using
> threaded but django spits out an error about a weakly-referenced
> object, related to sessions I believe, no longer existing.
it's not related to this, by any chance:
http://wolfram.kriesing.de/blo
What web server are you using in development ? I suspect this might be
a lighttpd / fastcgi problem. Have you tried Apache / mod_python ?
Just as a reference I'm managing 90,000+ hits a day on one Apache on a
UML virtual server, with the load rarely going above 2. With you setup
and Django you
We're trying to launch our Django site, and we're coming into severe
load issues.
The site right now has 2 SQL servers, clustered, and 3 web servers all
running with 4 cores and 4 gigs of memory.
Our biggest problem is everything seems ok on the development site,
load times are ok, the SQL queri
13 matches
Mail list logo
