On Sep 20, 12:16 pm, Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 20-Sep-07, at 12:23 AM, Steve Potter wrote: > > > I'm already quite sure I don't want to install mod_python on the > > existing Apache after reading all of the warnings about using the same > > Apache to serve static documents and Django. > > I am not sure exactly what you mean by this. mod_python is the > preferred way to go. The only thing is that static content/media will > go directly to apache bypassing mod_python. The 'warnings' are only > to help you to improve performance. Just performance, nothing evil > will happen if you serve those through mod_python.
All those warnings about using the same Apache to serve static documents as Django are generally totally meaningless to the average user. This is because the load on an average Apache site is no where near enough for it to be of concern. Problem is that people like to run these benchmarks looking at raw low level performance and because lighttpd shows better static file performance that it must therefore be better to farm off the static file requests. Reality is that the bottle neck for your application is going to be the Python code and database access. This is going to slow down the user experience immensely more than how quick your static files are served up. So, unless you know you are going to be running a web site with huge numbers of hits a day, it is probably reasonably safe to totally ignore such warnings. If you are going to run a large site with a lot of hits, you shouldn't be listening to such hearsay and should instead be doing your own proper benchmarking with the particular hardware you intend using. From that you are more likely to look at using multiple machines and a proper front end distributed load balancing solution than toying with trying to run lighttpd and Apache together with Apache proxying static requests to lighttpd. In general it just isn't going to be worth the effort. Now I now that some are likely to disagree with this. Well all I can say is show me the proper analysis and benchmarking that it makes any difference for your average web site. There may be some anecdotal comments about this on the net, but finding some real substance to such claims is much harder to come by. In summary, go with what is ever the easiest for you to setup and manage and does what you need. When your web site takes off and looks like it will become the next greatest thing, then you might revisit it, but you will go a long way with a simple setup before needing anything more complicated. In the meantime, concentrate on optimising your Python application first and reducing its bottlenecks. Graham --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
