On Jan 13, 5:01 am, Tom Evans <tevans...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Stuart Laughlin <stu...@bistrotech.net> > wrote: > > I don't care a whit about what "the cool boys" are doing. What I care about > > is a production deployment that works efficiently and reliably and that is > > diagnosable when something doesn't work. Apache fails those criteria; nginx > > and lighttpd pass (in my opinion and the opinion of many other developers > > who have used these technologies for non-trivial web applications in > > production environments). > > Despite the relentless attacks from people who have some sort of > grudge against Apache, I'd remind any readers that Apache is the most > used and trusted web server on the internet. It forms an integral part > of the technology that the company I work for is built around, and > performs extremely well for our usage, and I would thoroughly > recommend it. >
You can certainly demonstrate that Apache is the most used web server (57% and declining according to the most recent numbers I've seen). "Most trusted" is questionable, being such a subjective quality, but that's just a quibble. If apache forms an integral part of the technology that your company uses, then obviously it makes sense for you to use apache. Many people in this forum have no such investments in apache and have no idea how to tune/configure it optimally. In that case, I believe using apache is a mistake. I hope you are not lumping me in with the relentless grudge-bearing apache attackers. (After all, I've already been accused of ad hominem attacks and some sort of fanboy me-too'ism on this thread [seriously guys, is this a tough room or what?]). I have nothing against apache per se -- it's a great server with a rich feature-set not found in the lighter servers. The only thing is, I don't want or need any of those extra features for my django projects. So the only things those extra features would contribute to my projects are additional complexity and inefficiency. Servers like nginx, lighttpd, and cherokee were designed specifically for people in this situation. > Besides which, arguing about which web server is more efficient is a > clear indicator that you are concentrating on the wrong areas. nginx > or lighthttpd vs apache is meaningless when your the bottleneck will > always be the python application and/or DB server. > I'm not concerned with micro-performance enhancements. Nginx is clearly more efficient and performant than apache, but my main concern is being able to diagnose problems when they arise. I used apache/ mod_wsgi for my first few production deployments, and it was a very unpleasant experience -- weird memory usage statistics, users getting intermittent error messages, etc. -- and tracking down the problem was basically impossible. I found apache to be an opaque black box. The only thing that saved me was Graham Dumpleton sweeping in to rescue me with the perfect mod_wsgi config. He's the killer feature of django on apache as far as I'm concerned. I hope this helps to clarify my comments regarding apache and why someone who is not already an apache expert might wisely choose something other than apache to serve their django projects. --Stuart -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
