On 1/5/07, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
..
> Except that KeepAlive ties up processes waiting for further requests
> from a client, which may never come (and certainly won't if you run
> media separately as recommended.
So you're saying that basically the docs are wrong (not questioning
you; just trying to understand better)?
The docs aren't wrong, per se-- KeepAlive generally does result in a
performance improvement. KeepAlive allows multiple HTTP
request/response cycles to run through the same TCP connection,
avoiding the TCP setup cost. Typically, requests made on external
resources benefit most from KeepAlive (e.g. stylesheets fetched due to
a reference from an HTML).
But you have to weigh that cost with alternatives. The downside of
KeepAlive is that it's based on time, so you'll almost certainly have
processes sitting idle. If you run a separate media server, KeepAlive
is generally a waste, since subsequent requests go to a separate
process, and instead if just ties up the original process for no gain.
In general, it's unusual to have such a heavy apache process with no
subsequent requests, so the docs weren't written with it in mind.
... another poke in the dark... are you serving flatpages and/or
static media via Django?
Your settings.py and urls.py (leaving out sensitive stuff, of course)
would also help.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django
users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
