Thanks, I didn't realize there were all those different install scripts! The web2py book doesn't mention them on the deployment recipes page, but i should probably keep a closer eye on github repository to see what's new.
I'm glad to see that apache works after changing these settings, and the change has already been committed for next web2py release, but I'll probably start transitioning to nginx going forward. Dave On Friday, 31 July 2015 16:45:40 UTC-6, mcm wrote: > > nginx coupled with uwsgi is quite popular and easy to maintain compared to > apache. scripts are in the scripts directory they also take care of > installing uwsgi > > 2015-07-31 20:38 GMT+02:00 Dave <davidrams...@gmail.com <javascript:>>: > >> Thanks for weighing in on this. I'll update my apache config and keep an >> eye on memory usage. >> >> Are there any plans for a one-step deployment script for a web server >> other than apache? Which web server is the next most popular option with >> web2py community? >> >> Dave >> >> >> On Friday, 31 July 2015 11:19:54 UTC-6, Massimo Di Pierro wrote: >>> >>> I think that commit should be reversed. O changed to processes=5 >>> threads=1. but this may cause an increased memory usage and it is not a >>> good thing with apache. Agreed that Apache is no longer recommended (not >>> just for web2py users) but we should continue to support it because it is >>> still the mots popular web server. >>> >>> On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 15:32:19 UTC-5, Niphlod wrote: >>>> >>>> I dropped off the apache train too soon to have any issues with it, but >>>> frankly, given the total sum of issues encountered so far on the forums, >>>> I'm starting to think that we'd need to "officially discontinue" our >>>> apache >>>> support.. may be total lack of luck in setting it up or very biased >>>> perspective, or total lack of internal knowledge but it seems that every >>>> problem that pops up with deployments have apache as the common ground. >>>> >>>> looks like this is the commit to be blamed >>>> >>>> >>>> https://github.com/web2py/web2py/commit/2a062a2ff5aa1e07e7bfcfdbf36b7f72e8aac5b4 >>>> >>>> I don't know the specifics around it but if it acts like it suggests, 1 >>>> thread and 1 process as a total sum aren't really worth of a production >>>> deployment. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 6:00:47 PM UTC+2, Dave wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Actually, it looks like i was chasing the wrong issue... It wasn't >>>>> https after all. >>>>> >>>>> Everything seems to be working after changing this line in apache >>>>> default.conf: >>>>> >>>>> WSGIDaemonProcess web2py user=www-data group=www-data processes=1 >>>>> threads=1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> to: >>>>> >>>>> WSGIDaemonProcess web2py user=www-data group=www-data processes=5 >>>>> threads=15 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is there any reason not to change this default setting from one-step >>>>> deployment? Can I likely set these values higher based on my hardware? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again, >>>>> Dave >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 02:52:20 UTC-6, Niphlod wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> uhm, you left out some pretty specific details.... what resources has >>>>>> the server web2py is deployed on ? moreover, what's the size of the file >>>>>> ? >>>>>> and what code are you using to handle the upload? are you using the >>>>>> default >>>>>> 'upload' Field or is it in conjunction with a 'blob' one to store the >>>>>> file >>>>>> on the database ? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 4:59:29 AM UTC+2, Dave wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have this same behavior on multiple web2py servers. If a large >>>>>>> file is being uploaded using a SQLFORM or downloaded using the default >>>>>>> download controller, over HTTPS, the entire web server becomes >>>>>>> unresponsive >>>>>>> until the transfer is completed or cancelled. However, I have no >>>>>>> issues >>>>>>> uploading/downloading the same file over HTTP, which can also take >>>>>>> several >>>>>>> minutes to complete, but the web server is still responsive during >>>>>>> those >>>>>>> transfers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am using the one-step deployment with Apache and a wildcard >>>>>>> certificate (RapidSSL). Would switching to nginx or cherokee give >>>>>>> better >>>>>>> performance for https file transfers, or is this likely an issue with >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> SSL certificate format? Or if the file transfers over HTTPS are too >>>>>>> CPU >>>>>>> intensive, am i better off setting up multiple servers and a load >>>>>>> balancer? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> Dave R >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >> Resources: >> - http://web2py.com >> - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) >> - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) >> - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "web2py-users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to web2py+un...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
