It's Linux, mod_wsgi version 4.4.22 I can go to 4.5.1, but if the proc file system isn't available for some reason (I assume transiently??), will 4.5.1 still return None?
Kent On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com > wrote: > When you are not using Linux or MacOS X. Or when the Linux system you are > using doesn’t provide proc file system for some reason. > > Also, randomly if using the develop version from the Git repository before > 4.5.0 was released, plus if you are using 4.5.0. :-) > > The randomly bug should be fixed by using 4.5.1. > > So I have now released this code, but detected the same issue about five > minutes after releasing 4.5.0, as was the first time I had tried on Linux. > Thus 4.5.1 was released to fix it. > > Try again with the latest version. > > Graham > > > On 8 Apr 2016, at 12:27 AM, Kent Bower <k...@bowermail.net> wrote: > > Graham, > > Under what circumstances might* mod_wsgi.process_metrics()* return *None*? > > Exception in thread Thread-1: > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/threading.py", line 525, in > __bootstrap_inner > self.run() > File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/threading.py", line 477, in run > self.__target(*self.__args, **self.__kwargs) > File "/home/rarch/trunk/src/appserver/wsgi-config/memory_monitor.py", > line 41, in monitor > * megs = metrics['memory_rss']/1048576* > *TypeError: 'NoneType' object is unsubscriptable* > > I've only seen this once in apache log file, some strange timing?? > > Kent > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Kent Bower <k...@bowermail.net> wrote: > >> (Graham, your suggestions and recipe for a memory monitoring thread are >> working beautifully. Thanks again.) >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Graham Dumpleton < >> graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 22 Mar 2016, at 4:01 AM, Kent Bower <k...@bowermail.net> wrote: >>> >>> In your recipe for a background monitoring thread watching memory >>> consumption, after issuing the SIGUSR1, I'd probably just want the thread >>> to exit instead of sleeping... do I just do "sys.exit()" to safely >>> accomplish that? >>> >>> >>> The code isn’t just sleeping. It waits on a queue object which has >>> something placed on it when mod_wsgi is shutting down the process via >>> atexit callback. When the thread gets that it will exit cleanly, with the >>> main thread waiting on it to exit to ensure it isn’t running. >>> >>> If you just call sys.exit() that results in a SystemExit exception being >>> raised which causes the thread to exit but leaves an exception in the error >>> logs. >>> >>> The use of the queue is better as it ensures that threads are shutdown >>> properly when process is shutting down, else you risk that the thread could >>> try and run while interpreter is being destroyed, causing Python to crash >>> the process. >>> >>> Also, regarding my observations of paster returning garbage-collected >>> memory to the OS, was I just getting lucky while monitoring (the memory was >>> at the very top of the allocated memory)? This is a universal python issue? >>> >>> >>> It is a universal issue with any programs running on a UNIX system. >>> >>> You may want to Google up some articles on how memory allocation in UNIX >>> as well as in Python works. >>> >>> >>> Again, thanks for all your help! >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Graham Dumpleton < >>> graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 20 Mar 2016, at 1:10 AM, Kent Bower <k...@bowermail.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Graham, few more items inline... >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Graham Dumpleton < >>>> graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 11:28 PM, Kent Bower <k...@bowermail.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My answers are below, but before you peek, Graham, note that you and I >>>>> have been through this memory discussion before & I've read the vertical >>>>> partitioning article and use inactivity-timeout, "WSGIRestrictEmbedded >>>>> On", >>>>> considered maximum-requests, etc. >>>>> >>>>> After years of this, I'm resigned to the fact that python is memory >>>>> hungry, especially built on many of these web-stack and database >>>>> libraries, >>>>> etc. I'm Ok with that. I'm fine with a high-water RAM mark imposed by >>>>> running under Apache, mostly. But, dang, it sure would be great if the 1 >>>>> or 2% of requests that really (and legitimately) hog a ton of RAM, like, >>>>> say 500MB extra, didn't keep it when done. I may revisit vertical >>>>> partitioning again, but last time I did I think I found that the 1 or 2% >>>>> in >>>>> my case generally won't be divisible by url. In most cases I wouldn't >>>>> know >>>>> whether the particular request is going to need lots of RAM until >>>>> *after *the database queries return (which is far too late for >>>>> vertical partitioning to be useful). >>>>> >>>>> So I was mostly just curious about the status of nginx running wsgi, >>>>> which doesn't solve python's memory piggishness, but would at least >>>>> relinquish the extra RAM once python garbage collected. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Where have you got the idea that using nginx would result in memory >>>>> being released back to the OS once garbage collected? It isn’t able to do >>>>> that. >>>>> >>>>> The situations are very narrow as to when a process is able to give >>>>> back memory to the operating system. It can only be done when the now free >>>>> memory was at top of allocated memory. This generally only happens for >>>>> large block allocations and not in normal circumstances for a running >>>>> Python application. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At this point I'm not sure where I got that idea, but I'm surprised at >>>> this. For example, my previous observations of paster running wsgi were >>>> that it is quite faithful at returning free memory to the OS. Was I just >>>> getting lucky, or would paster be different for some reason? >>>> >>>> In any case, if nginx won't solve that, then I can't see any reason to >>>> even consider it over apache/mod_wsgi. Thank you for answering that. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> (Have you considered a max-memory parameter to mod_wsgi that would >>>>> gracefully stop taking requests and shutdown after the threshold is >>>>> reached >>>>> for platforms that would support it? I recall -- maybe incorrectly -- you >>>>> saying on Windows or certain platforms you wouldn't be able to support >>>>> that. What about the platforms that *could *support it? It seems to >>>>> me to be the very best way mod_wsgi could approach this Apache RAM nuance, >>>>> so seems like it would be tremendously useful for the platforms that could >>>>> support it.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You can do this yourself rather easily with more recent mod_wsgi >>>>> version. >>>>> >>>>> If you create a background thread from a WSGI script file, in similar >>>>> way as monitor for code changes does in: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://modwsgi.readthedocs.org/en/develop/user-guides/debugging-techniques.html#extracting-python-stack-traces >>>>> >>>>> but instead of looking for code changes, inside the main loop of the >>>>> background thread do: >>>>> >>>>> import os >>>>> import mod_wsgi >>>>> >>>>> metrics = mod_wsgi.process_metrics() >>>>> >>>>> if metrics[‘memory_rss’] > MYMEMORYTHRESHOLD: >>>>> os.kill(os.getpid(), signal.SIGUSR1) >>>>> >>>>> So mod_wsgi provides the way of determining the amount of memory >>>>> without resorting to importing psutil, which is quite fat in itself, but >>>>> how you use it is up to you. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Right, that's an idea; (could even be a shell script that takes this >>>> approach, I suppose, but I like your recipe.) >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, I don't want to *automate *bits that can feasibly >>>> clobber blocked sessions. SIGUSR1, after graceful-timeout & >>>> shutdown-timeout, can result in ungraceful killing. Our application shares >>>> a database with an old legacy application which was poorly written to hold >>>> transactions while waiting on user input (this was apparently common two >>>> decades ago). So, unfortunately, it isn't terribly uncommon that our >>>> application is blocked at the database level waiting for someone using the >>>> legacy application who has a record(s) locked and may not even be at their >>>> desk or may have gone to lunch. Sometimes our client's IT staff has to >>>> hunt down these people or decide to kill their database session. In any >>>> case, from a professional point of view, our application should be the >>>> responsible one and wait patiently, allowing our client's IT staff the >>>> choice of how to handle those cases. So, while the likelihood is pretty >>>> low, even with graceful-timeout & shutdown-timeout set at a very high value >>>> like 5 minutes,* I still run the risk of killing legitimate sessions >>>> with SIGUSR1*. (I've brought this up before and you didn't agree with >>>> my gripe and I do understand why, but in my use case, I don't feel I can >>>> automate that route responsibly.... we do use SIGUSR1 manually sometimes, >>>> when we can monitor and react to cases where a session is blocked at the >>>> database level.) >>>> >>>> >>>> If we have discussed it previously, then I may not have anything more >>>> to add. >>>> >>>> Did I previously suggest offloading this memory consuming tasks behind >>>> a job queue run under Celery or something else? That way they are out of >>>> the web server processes at least. >>>> >>>> inactivity-timeout doesn't present this concern: it won't ever kill >>>> anything, just silently restarts like a good boy when inactive. I've >>>> recently reconsidered dropping that way down from 30 minutes. (When I >>>> first implemented this, it was just to reclaim RAM at the end of the day, >>>> so that's why it is 30 minutes. I didn't like the idea of churning new >>>> processes during busy periods, but I've been thinking 1 or 2 minutes may be >>>> quite reasonable.) >>>> >>>> If I could signal processes to shutdown at their next opportunity >>>> (meaning the next time they are handling no requests, like >>>> inactivity-timeout), that would solve many issues in this regard for me >>>> because I could signal these processes when their RAM consumption is high >>>> and let them restart when "convenient," being the ultimate in >>>> gracefulness. SIGUSR2 could mean "the next time you get are completely >>>> idle," while SIGUSR1 continues to mean "initiate shutdown now.” >>>> >>>> >>>> That is what SIGUSR1 does it you set graceful-timeout large enough. It >>>> is SIGINT or SIGTERM which is effectively initiate shutdown now. So >>>> shouldn’t be a need to have a SIGUSR2 as SIGUSR1 should already do what you >>>> are hoping for with a reasonable setting of graceful-timeout. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Do note that if using SIGUSR1 to restart the current process (which >>>>> should only be done for deamon mode), you should also set graceful-timeout >>>>> option to WSGIDaemonProcess if you have long running requests. It is the >>>>> maximum time process will wait to shutdown while still waiting for >>>>> requests >>>>> when doing a SIGUSR2 graceful shutdown of process, before going into >>>>> forced >>>>> shutdown mode where no requests will be accepted and requests can be >>>>> interrupted. >>>>> >>>>> Here ( >>>>> http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2009/05/blocking-requests-and-nginx-version-of.html) >>>>> you discuss nginx's tendency to block requests that may otherwise be >>>>> executing in a different process, depending on timing, etc. Is this issue >>>>> still the same (I thought I read a hint somewhere that there may be a >>>>> workaround for that), so I ask. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That was related to someones attempt to embedded a Python interpreter >>>>> inside of nginx processes themselves. That project died a long time ago. >>>>> No >>>>> one embeds Python interpreters inside of nginx processes. It was a flawed >>>>> design. >>>>> >>>>> I don’t what you are reading to get all these strange ideas. :-) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Google, I suppose ;) That's why I finally asked you when I couldn't >>>> find anything more about it via Google. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> And so I wanted your opinion on nginx... >>>>> >>>>> ==== >>>>> Here is what you asked for if it can still be useful. >>>>> >>>>> I'm on mod_wsgi-4.4.6 and the particular server that prompted me this >>>>> time is running Apache 2.4 (prefork), though some of our clients use 2.2 >>>>> (prefork). >>>>> >>>>> Our typical wsgi conf setting is something like this, though threads >>>>> and processes varies depending on server size: >>>>> >>>>> LoadModule wsgi_module modules/mod_wsgi.so >>>>> WSGIPythonHome /home/rarch/tg2env >>>>> # see http://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/issues/detail?id=196#c10 concerning >>>>> timeouts >>>>> WSGIDaemonProcess rarch processes=20 threads=14 >>>>> inactivity-timeout=1800 display-name=%{GROUP} graceful-timeout=5 >>>>> python-eggs=/home/rarch/tg2env/lib/python-egg-cache >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is your web server really going to be idle for 30 minutes? I can’t see >>>>> how that would have been doing anything. >>>>> >>>>> Also, in mod_wsgi 4.x when inactivity-timeout kicks in has changed. >>>>> >>>>> It used to apply when there were active requests and they were >>>>> blocked, as well as when no requests were running. >>>>> >>>>> Now it only applies to case where there are no requests. >>>>> >>>>> The case for running but blocked requests is now handled by >>>>> request-timeout. >>>>> >>>>> You may be better of setting request-timeout now to be a more >>>>> reasonable value for your expected longest request, but set >>>>> inactivity-timeout to something much shorter. >>>>> >>>>> So suggest you play with that. >>>>> >>>>> Also, are you request handles I/O or CPU intensive and how many >>>>> requests? >>>>> >>>>> Such a high number of processes and threads always screams to me that >>>>> half the performance problems are due to setting these too [HIGH], >>>>> invoking >>>>> pathological OS process swapping issues and Python GIL issues. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, the requests are I/O intensive (that is, database intensive, which >>>> adds a huge overhead to our typical request). Often requests finish in >>>> under a second or two, but they also can take many seconds (not >>>> *terrible *for the user, but sometimes they do a lot of processing >>>> with many trips to the database). >>>> We have several clients (companies), so the number of requests varies >>>> widely, but can get pretty heavy on busy days (like black friday, since >>>> they are in retail). We've played with those numbers quite a bit and >>>> without high numbers like that, responsiveness suffers because we backlog >>>> due to requests often taking several seconds. >>>> >>>> Thanks for all your input, you've been tremendously helpful! >>>> Kent >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> WSGIProcessGroup rarch >>>>> WSGISocketPrefix run/wsgi >>>>> WSGIRestrictStdout Off >>>>> WSGIRestrictStdin On >>>>> # Memory tweak. >>>>> http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2009/11/save-on-memory-with-modwsgi-30.html >>>>> WSGIRestrictEmbedded On >>>>> WSGIPassAuthorization On >>>>> >>>>> # we'll make the /tg/ directory resolve as the wsgi script >>>>> WSGIScriptAlias /tg >>>>> /home/rarch/trunk/src/appserver/wsgi-config/wsgi-deployment.py >>>>> process-group=rarch application-group=%{GLOBAL} >>>>> WSGIScriptAlias /debug/tg >>>>> /home/rarch/trunk/src/appserver/wsgi-config/wsgi-deployment.py >>>>> process-group=rarch application-group=%{GLOBAL} >>>>> >>>>> MaxRequestsPerChild 0 >>>>> <IfModule prefork.c> >>>>> MaxClients 308 >>>>> ServerLimit 308 >>>>> </IfModule> >>>>> <IfModule worker.c> >>>>> ThreadsPerChild 25 >>>>> MaxClients 400 >>>>> ServerLimit 16 >>>>> </IfModule> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for all your help and for excellent software! >>>>> Kent >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Graham Dumpleton < >>>>> graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On the question of whether nginx will solve this problem, I can’t see >>>>>> how. >>>>>> >>>>>> When one talks about nginx and Python web applications, it is only as >>>>>> a proxy for HTTP requests to some backend WSGI server. The Python web >>>>>> application doesn’t run in nginx itself. So memory issues and how to deal >>>>>> with them are the provence of the WSGI server used, whatever that is and >>>>>> not nginx. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, answer the questions below and can start with that. >>>>>> >>>>>> You really want to be using recent mod_wsgi version and not Apache >>>>>> 2.2. >>>>>> >>>>>> Apache 2.2 design has various issues and bad configuration defaults >>>>>> which means it can gobble up more memory than you want. Recent mod_wsgi >>>>>> versions have workarounds for Apache 2.2 issues and are much better at >>>>>> eliminating those Apache 2.2 issues. Recent mod_wsgi versions also have >>>>>> fixes for memory usage problems in some corner cases. As far as what I >>>>>> mean >>>>>> by recent, I recommend 4.4.12 or later. The most recent version is >>>>>> 4.4.21. >>>>>> If you are stuck with 3.4 or 3.5 from your Linux distro that is not good >>>>>> and that may increase problems. >>>>>> >>>>>> So long as got recent mod_wsgi version then can look at using >>>>>> vertical partitioning to farm out memory hungry request handlers to their >>>>>> own daemon process group and better configure those to handle that and >>>>>> recycle processes based on activity or, memory usage. A blog post related >>>>>> to that is: >>>>>> >>>>>> * >>>>>> http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2014/02/vertically-partitioning-python-web.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Graham >>>>>> >>>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 7:15 AM, Graham Dumpleton < >>>>>> graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> What version of mod_wsgi and Apache are you using? >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you stuck with old versions of both? >>>>>> >>>>>> For memory tracking there are API calls mod_wsgi provides in recent >>>>>> versions for getting memory usage which can be used as part of scheme to >>>>>> trigger a process restart. You can’t use sys.exit(), but can use signals >>>>>> to >>>>>> trigger a clean shutdown of a process. Again better to have recent >>>>>> mod_wsgi >>>>>> versions as can then also set up some graceful timeout options for signal >>>>>> induced restart. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, what is your mod_wsgi configuration so can make sure doing all >>>>>> the typical things one would do to limit memory usage, or quarantine >>>>>> particular handlers which are memory hungry? >>>>>> >>>>>> Graham >>>>>> >>>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 4:29 AM, Kent Bower <k...@bowermail.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting idea.. yes, we are using multiple threads and also other >>>>>> stack frameworks, so that's not straightforward, but worth thinking >>>>>> about... not sure how to approach that with the other threads. Thank you >>>>>> Bill. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Bill Freeman <ke1g...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know about nginx, but one possibility, if the large memory >>>>>>> requests are infrequent, is to detect when you have completed one and >>>>>>> trigger the exit/reload of the daemon process (calling sys.exit() is not >>>>>>> the way, since there could be other threads in the middle of something, >>>>>>> unless you run one thread per process). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Kent <jkentbo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm looking for a very brief high-level pros vs. cons of wsgi under >>>>>>>> *apache *vs. under *nginx *and then to be pointed to more details >>>>>>>> I can study myself (or at least the latter). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Our application occasionally allows requests that consume a large >>>>>>>> amount of RAM (no obvious way around that, they are valid requests) and >>>>>>>> occasionally this causes problems since we can't reclaim the RAM >>>>>>>> readily >>>>>>>> from apache. (We already have tweaked with and do use >>>>>>>> "inactivity-timeout". This helps, but still now and then we hit >>>>>>>> problems >>>>>>>> where we run into swapping to disk.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm wondering if nginx may solve this problem. I've read much of >>>>>>>> what you (Graham) have had to say about the memory strategies with >>>>>>>> apache >>>>>>>> and mod_wsgi, but wonder what your opinion of nginx is and where you've >>>>>>>> already discussed this. I've read articles I could find you've >>>>>>>> written on >>>>>>>> nginx, such as "Blocking requests and nginx version of mod_wsgi," but >>>>>>>> wonder if the same weaknesses are still applicable today, 7 years >>>>>>>> later? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you very much in advance! >>>>>>>> Kent >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "modwsgi" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>>> the Google Groups "modwsgi" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/modwsgi/wyo2bJP0Cfc/unsubscribe. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>>> modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "modwsgi" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>> the Google Groups "modwsgi" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/modwsgi/wyo2bJP0Cfc/unsubscribe. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>> modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "modwsgi" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. >>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>>> Google Groups "modwsgi" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/modwsgi/wyo2bJP0Cfc/unsubscribe. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>> modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. >>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "modwsgi" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>> Google Groups "modwsgi" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/modwsgi/wyo2bJP0Cfc/unsubscribe. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>> modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "modwsgi" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups "modwsgi" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/modwsgi/wyo2bJP0Cfc/unsubscribe. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "modwsgi" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "modwsgi" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/modwsgi/wyo2bJP0Cfc/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "modwsgi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to modwsgi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to modwsgi@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
