Bruce you had mentioned that you were preparing an article about deploying on lighttpd and gunicorn. I was wondering if you had finished it and if so where it was accessible. I am trying various deployment options to figure which is the fastest/easiest.
Does anyone else have any experience or advice about this or know of any good tutorials/resources. Thanks! -Josh On Nov 12, 6:57 am, Alex Robbins <[email protected]> wrote: > I think most people use mod_wsgi simply because it is the > djangoproject recommendation. > > http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.2/howto/deployment/ > > "If you’re new to deploying Django and/or Python, we’d recommend you > try mod_wsgi first. In most cases it’ll be the easiest, fastest, and > most stable deployment choice." > > Also, the value, quantity and quality of Graham Dumpleton's assistance > would be hard to overstate. He is everywhere, answering questions in > great detail and being very, very helpful. I think mod_wsgi's success > is due almost entirely to his huge investment of time showing people > how to use it. Also, mod_wsgi can be run without need external > processes setup by the user. For example, your fcgi orgunicorn > deployment would need something like supervisord running to manage it. > Perhaps setting up your own daemon, which supervises other daemons is > intimidating to some people. > > I was very surprised to seegunicornmentioned as the obvious > deployment solution at djangocon, since it isn't even mentioned in the > docs. Having tried nginx+gunicornthough, I certainly prefer it. It is > faster and has a smaller memory footprint. > > Alex > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Bruce Kroeze <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd also love to hear a rational explanation justifying mod_wsgi over > > fastcgi or proxying togunicorn. Most sites simply don't have the traffic > > where performance is an issue, so ... why? Considering maintenance as a > > major cost moving forward for deployed sites, I'd love to be told why > > apache/mod_wsgi is a reasonable solution. From what I can guess, it is > > simple laziness, but I'd love to be shown wrong. > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Josh <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> C I am curious, I am assuming you would recommend fastcgi over > >> mod_wsgi and if so how come? I feel like there is so many people > >> telling you one over the other its hard to get straight facts and not > >> just "mod_wsgi is besttteststs...." Thanks for the input! > > >> On Nov 11, 4:52 pm, Josh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I think I have hunted the problem down. I had inadvertently included > >> > the flatpages urls twice in two separate urls. One of them was store/ > >> > urls.py and imported satchmo_store.urls and added the flatpages url. > >> > The other was store/localsite/urls.py which is my root urls, but it > >> > was included the store.urls and added the flatpages urls and other > >> > urls for some custom stuff (like the redirect I mentioned in an > >> > earlier post). So both urls were adding the flatpages url. Now I am > >> > only using the store.localsite.urls (it now import satchmo_store.urls > >> > instead of store.urls) and I have completely removed the flatpages > >> > from those store.localsite.urls (I think the middleware was and now it > >> > definitely is taking care of flatpages anyway). When loading pages > >> > memory use goes up but once pages are done loading the memory > >> > stabilizes and I am assuming will eventually go down when the child > >> > processes are killed by hitting their timeout. Thanks for all of the > >> > help, I'm still going to take a look atgunicornas well because > >> > performance has been an issue and anything to make it faster would be > >> > great. > > >> > -Josh > >> > On Nov 11, 2:19 pm, Alex Robbins <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > > >> > > Yeah, I'm with Bruce on that. We switched from mod_wsgi to > >> > > nginx/gunicornbecause it was a pain and took more resources. > > >> > > Alex > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Bruce Kroeze <[email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > Bleah. > >> > > > I'm going to jump in here and say - as I always do in this type of > >> > > > situation > >> > > > - that Apache is a terrible solution for Django/Satchmo. > >> > > > Djangoproject's > >> > > > recommendation is simply wrong for most use cases. > >> > > > This is yet another reason why. You can't determine where the leak > >> > > > is. Is > >> > > > it Apache? Is it mod_wsgi misconfigured? Who knows? It isn't > >> > > > something > >> > > > you can get to the bottom of without a ton of testing, and in the > >> > > > meantime > >> > > > your site is crashing. > >> > > > Who cares? Stop using Apache. Mod_wsgi stinks, almost as much as > >> > > > mod_python. > >> > > > My preferred solution these days has changed, and I'm preparing a > >> > > > detailed > >> > > > article about it, but it isn't very far from this solution. > > >> > > > http://brandonkonkle.com/blog/2010/jun/25/provisioning-new-ubuntu-ser... > >> > > > Differences in my most-preferred-solution: I use buildout instead > >> > > > of pip, > >> > > > and Lighttpd instead of Nginx. Neither change would affect the > >> > > > superiority > >> > > > of this solution. > >> > > > Here's the big deal - this is why you should do this in a nutshell: > >> > > > 1) You will explicitly know which process is eating memory, since > >> > > > you will > >> > > > have separate django daemon threads. > >> > > > 2) Green Unicorn will allow you to kill and recycle worker threads > >> > > > after > >> > > > timeouts. If it really is Satchmo eating memory, then that will > >> > > > release the > >> > > > memory on a continual basis. > >> > > > 2.5) Green Unicorn is almost unbelievably nice. Really. I love it. > >> > > > 3) Your site will almost certainly be faster. In any case, much > >> > > > faster > >> > > > compared to a crashed server. > >> > > > 4) Figuring out what is wrong will be much much easier. > >> > > > #4 is the biggest issue, IMHO. 90% of the cost of a store is > >> > > > maintenance. > >> > > > Anything that makes the store easier to maintain and debug is worth > >> > > > it, > >> > > > even if #3 is not true. Worth a little speed slowdown (doubtful in > >> > > > any > >> > > > case) in exchange for testability and clarity. > >> > > > Good Luck, > >> > > > Bruce Kroeze > >> > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Alex Robbins > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> Sorry, at this point its hard for me to say exactly what is going > >> > > >> on. > >> > > >> I'd say if you can't see any processes with the name you assigned > >> > > >> in > >> > > >> the config directive, then it seems like there probably aren't > >> > > >> daemon > >> > > >> processes. This is what happened to me earlier. I had to tweak and > >> > > >> mess with the daemon process settings to get it to work. If I > >> > > >> remember > >> > > >> my situation correctly, the process group wasn't setup right, but > >> > > >> yours looks ok to me. > > >> > > >> As for how is it running at all? If it isn't in daemon mode, then > >> > > >> it > >> > > >> is running in embedded mode. There is a python interpreter in every > >> > > >> httpd process, which would take a lot of ram if you spawned a bunch > >> > > >> of > >> > > >> httpd worker processes. > > >> > > >> Alex > > >> > > >> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Josh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Ok so the conf now looks like this: > > >> > > >> > WSGIDaemonProcess hatikva.com user=hatikva group=hatikva > >> > > >> > python-path=/ > >> > > >> > usr/local/lib/python2.6/site-packages display-name=%{GROUP} > >> > > >> > WSGIProcessGroup hatikva.com > >> > > >> > WSGIScriptAlias / /home/hatikva/store/apache/store.wsgi > > >> > > >> > but when I ps -A I don't see anything like wsgi:hatikva. Does > >> > > >> > this > >> > > >> > potentially mean it's not really running in daemon mode? If so > >> > > >> > any > >> > > >> > ideas on how it is running at all? > > >> > > >> > On Nov 11, 12:53 pm, Alex Robbins <[email protected]> > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Yeah, looks like you are right. I think I normally used that > >> > > >> >> 'display-name option' that Graham mentioned. Sorry about the > >> > > >> >> confusion > >> > > >> >> there. If you use that, then do they show up in ps? > > >> > > >> >> Alex > > >> > > >> >> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Josh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > I also noticed that down near the bottom of this thread > > >> > > >> >> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi/browse_thread/thread/9d0e72b2c... > >> > > >> >> > Graham Dumpleton said that "Under 'top' or 'ps', the mod_wsgi > >> > > >> >> > daemon > >> > > >> >> > process will still show as a apache/httpd process." So I > >> > > >> >> > think it > >> > > >> >> > all > >> > > >> >> > gets lumped together. > > >> > > >> >> > On Nov 11, 12:38 pm, Josh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> >> Hmm, i don't think I'm actually seeing the daemons. What do > >> > > >> >> >> they > >> > > >> >> >> show > >> > > >> >> >> up as under COMMAND (I dont see anything with wsgi). But > >> > > >> >> >> there is > >> > > >> >> >> another small dev site running on the same server (they are > >> > > >> >> >> both > >> > > >> >> >> theoretically set up under daemon mode as I showed above). I > >> > > >> >> >> think > >> > > >> >> >> that if it wasn't in daemon mode they wouldn't both work > >> > > >> >> >> although I > >> > > >> >> >> could be wrong about that. Looking at the apache conf I > >> > > >> >> >> posted > >> > > >> >> >> earlier does it seem that I have properly configured daemon > >> > > >> >> >> mode? > >> > > >> >> >> Thanks. > > >> > > >> >> >> On Nov 11, 12:22 pm, Alex Robbins > >> > > >> >> >> <[email protected]> > >> > > >> >> >> wrote: > > >> > > >> >> >> > If you are really running mod_wsgi in daemon mode, then > >> > > >> >> >> > django and > >> > > >> >> >> > satchmo won't be able to affect the size of the httpd > >> > > >> >> >> > processes. > >> > > >> >> >> > The > >> > > >> >> >> > python interpreter should live in the mod_wsgi daemon, > >> > > >> >> >> > which is a > >> > > >> >> >> > completely separate process. I have had troubles before > >> > > >> >> >> > with > >> > > >> >> >> > mod_wsgi > >> > > >> >> >> > running in embedded mode, even though it is supposed to be > >> > > >> >> >> > daemon. > >> > > >> >> >> > Can > >> > > >> >> >> > you see any processes for mod_wsgi? If you don't get the > >> > > >> >> >> > config > >> > > >> >> >> > exactly right, it won't use daemon > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Satchmo 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/satchmo-users?hl=en.
