On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 17:31 -0500, seth vidal wrote: > On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 11:43 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > This is mostly for the TurboGears guys in the group. We've discussed > > > this a little in the past but I wanted to get something down for sure > > > before all of our stuff goes live. Whats going to be our official > > > deployment method? Personally I'd vote mod_python though I haven't > > > actually done this yet. Does using mod_python still require a proxypass > > > to a tg port? I'd tend towards mod_python just because it would behave > > > just like the rest of our apps do though I know toshio has some neat > > > script that makes it behave that way too. What do you guys think? > > > mod_python may be too complex for what we're trying to accomplish. > > > > Just some random thoughts as I'm running out the door: > > > > I have never gotten mod_python to work with a cherrypy/tg based > > application by following the documentation on either project's wikis. > > That said, I haven't tried with TG since 0.8 so perhaps the process (or > > just the documentation) is better now. > > > > I like the way I'm doing it because I've got it to a state where it > > pretty much just works but if we can do that with mod_python as well, > > that would be fine. My method is basically Apache proxypassing to the > > turbogears application server. If the tg server isn't running, the > > proxypass error handler loads a small cgi script that starts the > > turbogears app and once the app responds, sends the user there. > > > > TurboGears is trying to become more WSGI compliant. TG-1.1 is supposed > > to use cherrypy-3.0 which has a builtin mod_python->WSGI gateway. That > > should make mod_python deployment simpler than with cherrypy-2.2. > > > > So I think -- if we can make mod_python easy to deploy, that seems the > > way to go. If we can't then I've got something that will work until > > TG-1.1 and a more integrated WSGI implementation. > > > > Tangentially: We probably want to preserve the ability to run our apps > > on several different servers. Because python libraries don't do > > versioning (well -- we may be able to do it with setuptools and eggs, > > but that's a long term, distro-wide change.) we can enter situations > > where some web apps depend on TG-1.0 and others on TG-1.1 (or sqlobject > > or python-urlgrabber or...) Being able to proxy to a xen host during > > transition periods rather than having to upgrade all our web apps at > > once is probably a good thing. > > How performant is the tg server? In the past the python webserver was > not exactly a barn burner when it came to performance. It worked, but it > didn't hold up well under heavy load. Having apache in front helps but > just like with zope, if the app is slow, the app is slow. > > any load testing done, yet? There are some benchmarks for cherrpy-2.0 (TG-1.0 uses cherrypy2.2, TG-1.1 will use cherrypy-3.0) http://www.cherrypy.org/wiki/CherryPySpeed http://docs.cherrypy.org/recommended-setup-for-production-websites Gives some stats for page requests from behind apache vs having the cherrypy server directly exposed. http://www.cherrypy.org/wiki/WhatsNewIn30 Says that cherrypy3 is "as much as three times faster in benchmarks" as cherrypy2 but I haven't seen the benchmarks. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
