Is there a consensus on the project that'll be created to handle this outside of Django? Would be nice to have something to point people to when closing Trac tickets for FastCGI.
On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 5:56:45 AM UTC-4, Tom Evans wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Some Developer > <someukd...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > On 21/07/2013 05:08, Curtis Maloney wrote: > >> > >> I wasn't aware there was a particular performance issue, but I'll > >> certainly keep it in mind. > > > > > > Take a look at this: > > > > http://www.peterbe.com/plog/fcgi-vs-gunicorn-vs-uwsgi > > > > I've probably already said it but if you want some help with this > project > > I'd be interested. > > Did you notice that the first thing that anyone does when benchmarking > HTTP servers is that they reduce the work being done by the server so > that it is trivial. That link explains it best, if you throw away > everything that Django provides and simply use it to render a static > string, then uWSGI is faster than gunicorn, which is faster than FCGI. > If you leave any of it enabled however, they all benchmark at > precisely the same speed. > > So, if your django website does not use sessions nor databases nor > templates, then sure, you get a huge performance benefit from fiddling > around with serving mechanisms. > > Cheers > > Tom > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
