Jp Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>Has anyone experience high load and twisted? > Distributing load across multiple machines scales better than distributing > it over multiple CPUs in a single machine. If you have serious scalability > requirements, SMP is a minor step in the wrong direction (unless you're > talking about something like 128-way SMP on a supercomputer :)
I agree. In my experience, heavily loaded machines doing network stuff tend to load on I/O, not CPU. So more machines works better than more CPU - though more bandwidth to disk or the network may be equally useful. The exception is if they are doing very CPU-intensive things in response to network requests. In the latter case, spinning those CPU-intensive things off to a separate process is a good option for distributing the load across multiple CPUs. And with Twisted, you've already got the framework in place to do that. In this scenario, Twisted becomes a big switch, passing work requests off to other processes, and returning the results back. That should be plenty quick. There are, of course, exceptions to pretty much everything. <mike -- Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list