Paul Rubin wrote:
> Jp Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Distributing load across multiple machines scales better than
>> distributing it over multiple CPUs in a single machine. If you have
>> serious scalability requirements, SMP is a minor step in the wrong
>> direction (unless you're
On 19 May 2005 17:01:11 -0700, Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>Jp Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Distributing load across multiple machines scales better than
>> distributing it over multiple CPUs in a single machine. If you have
>> serious scalability requirements
Jp Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Distributing load across multiple machines scales better than
> distributing it over multiple CPUs in a single machine. If you have
> serious scalability requirements, SMP is a minor step in the wrong
> direction (unless you're talking about something l
Jp Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Has anyone experience high load and twisted?
> Distributing load across multiple machines scales better than distributing
> it over multiple CPUs in a single machine. If you have serious scalability
> requirements, SMP is a minor step in the wrong di
On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:22:31 +0200, Thomas Guettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Out of sheer curiosity:
>
>Does Twisted scale if the server has several CPUs?
>
No more than any other single-process Python application (no less, either).
Unless you run multiple processes...
>As far as I
Hi,
Out of sheer curiosity:
Does Twisted scale if the server has several CPUs?
As far as I know twisted uses one interpreter. This
means a prefork server modul might be better to
server database driven web-apps.
Has anyone experience high load and twisted?
Thomas
--
Thomas Güttler, http://w
