I have not run any benchmark but it seems to me that running Apache provides better customization (like multiple domains, deny access to specific domains, better ssl support than wsgiserver) and speed for static files. Probably it does not make a major different when serving dynamic content in terms of speed.
In terms of drop rate, Tim convinced me that wsgiserver does not do a good job. We should run more benchmarks of Rocket vs Apache. If you have numbers please share them. On Jan 9, 11:55 am, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote: > > "would" ? So you don't currently run a setup where you got to choose > > how it runs? > > Your assuming that by saying "would" that I mean "if I had a choice I > would". If I really ment the latter then I would have said the latter. > As a general rhetorical comment, why do people have to put their own > assumptions into text, why can't they just see the communication at > face value, and take it at that? > > I run web2py in a way that I get to choose exactly how I want it's > environment to be. > > > > > I guess readers should take your comments with a grain of salt > > considering that in another thread you admit to being a young > > developer with not much experience. That's ok. It's good to start > > out conservative and get more flexible as you learn. > > Just because I do not have real world experience, does not mean I > don't know the technology. I know the "technology" very well, its the > real world life skills of programming I am currently struggling with. > Especially since I am the only programmer at the company I work for, I > have nobody to look up to. > > > I'm not picking on you, just hoping to broaden your horizons a > > little. I'm running some benchmarks on Rocket. It comes out more > > concurrent than Apache even (though it cannot serve more throughput). > > Rocket will eventually include a file-server as well that will be > > faster than running file requests through web2py. > > I suppose this is another situation where it depends on your needs. If > all you need is one web2py app running on one computer, then it might > be fine with you. > > However if you need to run multiple domains, multiple programming > languages (python/php/ruby), multiple users, etc... rocket probably > wouldn't be the ticket. > > You say that it will be one less step in your disaster recovery plan, > but I can build a linux box from scratch and have > apache/web2py/postgres installed in a little under 5 minutes with the > help of some scripts that have been developed. I know its still an > extra step but it hardly requires any extra time to setup. > > Rocket will be awesome if thats all you need. I however prefer to use > systems that will allow the greatest performance and flexibility. > > -Thadeus > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Timbo <tfarr...@swgen.com> wrote: > > "would" ? So you don't currently run a setup where you got to choose > > how it runs? > > > I guess readers should take your comments with a grain of salt > > considering that in another thread you admit to being a young > > developer with not much experience. That's ok. It's good to start > > out conservative and get more flexible as you learn. > > > I'm not picking on you, just hoping to broaden your horizons a > > little. I'm running some benchmarks on Rocket. It comes out more > > concurrent than Apache even (though it cannot serve more throughput). > > Rocket will eventually include a file-server as well that will be > > faster than running file requests through web2py. > > > -tim > > > On Jan 8, 4:25 pm, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote: > >> I would never use the built in server for production. > > >> I will stick it on a linux server, running apache to server web2py and > >> nginx to serve static files. > > >> I'm an extremest, and will use the fastest configuration possible for > >> every situation, and don't see any situation where I would use the > >> built-in server for anything more than testing. > > >> -Thadeus > > >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:36 PM, cjrh <caleb.hatti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Jan 8, 8:46 pm, Timothy Farrell <tfarr...@swgen.com> wrote: > >> >> I am still interested to know if anyone uses web2py without an external > >> >> webserver. > > >> > I do, on an intranet app for serving automated builds. Very low > >> > concurrency (theoretical maximum of 12 simultaneous connections :). > > >> > -- > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> > Groups "web2py-users" group. > >> > To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com. > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> > web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >> > For more options, visit this group > >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "web2py-users" group. > > To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en. > >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en.
