Re: Django with Cherokee web server

[Max Battcher]

Rudy Lattae wrote:
> * Have you used Cherokee with Django?

I swapped a VPS a few months back from Apache + mod_python to lighttpd 
(FCGI) then to nginx then to Cherokee (SCGI)... I got somewhat 
frustrated with configuration editing and ugly/useless wiki 
documentation, so ultimately the deciding factors for me were Cherokee's 
well-formatted, easy to read (up to date!) documentation and the 
cherokee-admin tool.

The cherokee-admin is often especially handy because I tend to run 
little experiments in random sub-domains and you can make 
updates/changes on the fly, tweaking things until they work right.

> * Have you run any benchmarks comparing (or noticed performance
> differences between) Cherokee and Apache + mod_wsgi/mod_python -- esp.
> for concurrent requests?

I haven't run any benchmarks. Anecdotally the speed has never been an 
issue for me, I've generally been more worried about RAM usage (because 
these are VPSes I'm using), and all of the FCGI/SCGI solutions I've used 
seem to be about what I needed to better deal with that (particularly 
for the sorts of sub-domains that don't get hit all that often).

> * Are there any issues, concerns, road blocks that one needs to
> lookout for when using Cherokee to serve a Django site/app/service?

I've been happy with it. The Cherokee documentation appears to tell you 
everything you need to know, clearly and concisely. I haven't had any 
problems with it (knock on wood), and its been running stably for a few 
months now without the need for any further configuration tweaks or resets.

--
--Max Battcher--
http://worldmaker.net


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Django with Cherokee web server

[Rudy Lattae]

Folks, I think we should bring this back to the actual question and
not derail the thread and ram it head first into the FUD vs FUD
mountain. hcarvalhoalves original question was (and still remains):

"I wanted to know if someone here on the list is using or used
Cherokee
with Django, if there's any performance improvements over Apache +
mod_wsgi/mod_python (specially for concurrent requests), and if there
are any gotchas with Django 1.1. "

I just wanted to draw the attention of all the well meaning
contributors to the key components of hcarvalhoalve's question:
* Have you used Cherokee with Django?
* Have you run any benchmarks comparing (or noticed performance
differences between) Cherokee and Apache + mod_wsgi/mod_python -- esp.
for concurrent requests?
* Are there any issues, concerns, road blocks that one needs to
lookout for when using Cherokee to serve a Django site/app/service?

I unfortunately have not used Cherokee, so I cannot comment on the
above question. However, I hope we see some pertinent responses soon.

Cheers

On Oct 8, 11:46 am, Oli Warner  wrote:
> > To stick with your analogy, it actually *is* like buying a car and being
> > surprised you don't get 0-60 in 5 seconds and 80 mpg, but only because
> > you will only drive it in second gear. And then you blame the dealer..
>
> Sure. Cherokee's an automatic ;p
>
> > >From the way you talk about Apache, you are fearful of it
>
> Fear doesn't enter into it at all. There's no uncertainty or doubt in my
> mind.
>
> I used Apache for several years. I *know* deploying it is harder. I
> *know*how much time it absorbs because its default behaviour needs so
> much
> attention.
>
> That's probably still not good enough for you but hey. It's my opinion.
> Somebody asked and I gave. Yours differs from mine. Great. I'm over the moon
> that you're happy with Apache. But I'm not particularly happy that you're
> trolling all over the thread calling me a FUD spreader for sharing my
> experience.
>
> That's not to say there's nothing of value in your posts. Unless you're
> dealing with billions of requests a day, connector latency is probably the
> least of your worries.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Django with Cherokee web server

[Oli Warner]

>
> To stick with your analogy, it actually *is* like buying a car and being
> surprised you don't get 0-60 in 5 seconds and 80 mpg, but only because
> you will only drive it in second gear. And then you blame the dealer..
>

Sure. Cherokee's an automatic ;p


> >From the way you talk about Apache, you are fearful of it


Fear doesn't enter into it at all. There's no uncertainty or doubt in my
mind.

I used Apache for several years. I *know* deploying it is harder. I
*know*how much time it absorbs because its default behaviour needs so
much
attention.

That's probably still not good enough for you but hey. It's my opinion.
Somebody asked and I gave. Yours differs from mine. Great. I'm over the moon
that you're happy with Apache. But I'm not particularly happy that you're
trolling all over the thread calling me a FUD spreader for sharing my
experience.

That's not to say there's nothing of value in your posts. Unless you're
dealing with billions of requests a day, connector latency is probably the
least of your worries.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Django with Cherokee web server

[Tom Evans]

On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:23 +0100, Oli Warner wrote:
> FUD. You just think it is slow and inefficient because you
> have never
> configured it correctly.
> 
> Analogy time. Gather round, children.
> 
> You buy a car. The dealer said it can do 0 to 60mph in five seconds
> and does 80 miles per gallon. You buy it for these reasons but when
> you receive it and test it, you find you can't even get to 60mph and
> you're only getting 10 miles per gallon.
> 
> You read the manual and find that in order to get optimum figures, you
> have to spend a few hours under the bonnet, completely out of your
> comfort zone, tweaking it to your consider your height, weight and
> shoe size. You're not a mechanic. You don't want to be a mechanic.
> 
> That's what we're talking about here. Sure Apache can do amazing
> things but as a web developer, I'd much rather spend time developing
> web apps than learning and maintaining the platform.
> 
> Cherokee by default it's a lot lighter and helps you create complex
> scenarios quickly and fuss-free.
> 

To stick with your analogy, it actually *is* like buying a car and being
surprised you don't get 0-60 in 5 seconds and 80 mpg, but only because
you will only drive it in second gear. And then you blame the dealer..

>From the way you talk about Apache, you are fearful of it, because you
don't know how to use it correctly, you are uncertain of how to
configure it correctly, and you are doubtful that it will do it's job
properly even if it was configured properly. It is classic FUD.

Millions and millions of websites do run quite nicely on Apache, and we
don't spend a lot of time configuring Apache to make it do so. I'm not
saying that Cherokee or Tornado or any other web stack isn't fast, just
that any FCGI/WSGI container will do pretty much the same job in pretty
much the same manner, with pretty much the same results, especially when
the FCGI/WSGI app it is connecting to is something reasonably heavy,
like django can be.

Cheers

Tom


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Django with Cherokee web server

[Oli Warner]

>
> FUD. You just think it is slow and inefficient because you have never
> configured it correctly.
>

Analogy time. Gather round, children.

You buy a car. The dealer said it can do 0 to 60mph in five seconds and does
80 miles per gallon. You buy it for these reasons but when you receive it
and test it, you find you can't even get to 60mph and you're only getting 10
miles per gallon.

You read the manual and find that in order to get optimum figures, you have
to spend a few hours under the bonnet, completely out of your comfort zone,
tweaking it to your consider your height, weight and shoe size. You're not a
mechanic. You don't want to be a mechanic.

That's what we're talking about here. Sure Apache *can* do amazing things
but as a web developer, I'd much rather spend time developing web apps than
learning and maintaining the platform.

Cherokee by default it's a lot lighter and helps you create complex
scenarios quickly and fuss-free.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Django with Cherokee web server

[Tom Evans]

On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 23:54 +0100, Oli Warner wrote:
> People quite happily run Django on memory starved VPS systems
> using
> Apache/mod_wsgi with optional nginx front end for static
> files.
> 
> Apache is woefully slow and inefficient at static serving. A static
> reverse proxy is not optional for sane people.
> 
> And I'd rather just admin one server.
> 

FUD. You just think it is slow and inefficient because you have never
configured it correctly. 

However, that is largely irrelevant. There is no tangible difference in
speed serving django from one fcgi/wsgi server than from almost any
other. Anything you do in django will be orders of magnitude slower than
what the server does.

Cheers

Tom


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Django with Cherokee web server

[Oli Warner]

>
> People quite happily run Django on memory starved VPS systems using
> Apache/mod_wsgi *with optional nginx front end* for static files.
>

Apache is woefully slow and inefficient at static serving. A static reverse
proxy is not optional for sane people.

And I'd rather just admin one server.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Django with Cherokee web server

[Graham Dumpleton]

On Oct 8, 9:38 am, Oli Warner  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:34 AM, hcarvalhoalves 
> wrote:
>
> > I wanted to know if someone here on the list is using or used Cherokee
> > with Django, if there's any performance improvements over Apache +
> > mod_wsgi/mod_python (specially for concurrent requests), and if there
> > are any gotchas with Django 1.1.
>
> No gotchas with 1.1
>
> I'm not sure if it's faster with my current sites (because I never deployed
> them on Apache) but they certainly take up a lot less RAM than Apache did.
> That's really what matters to me as I'm on a VPS with limited resources. I'm
> happy.

Using Apache doesn't need to take up lots of memory. For why people
have this problem read:

http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2009/03/load-spikes-and-excessive-memory-usage.html

People quite happily run Django on memory starved VPS systems using
Apache/mod_wsgi with optional nginx front end for static files.

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 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Django with Cherokee web server

[Oli Warner]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:34 AM, hcarvalhoalves wrote:

> I wanted to know if someone here on the list is using or used Cherokee
> with Django, if there's any performance improvements over Apache +
> mod_wsgi/mod_python (specially for concurrent requests), and if there
> are any gotchas with Django 1.1.
>

No gotchas with 1.1

I'm not sure if it's faster with my current sites (because I never deployed
them on Apache) but they certainly take up a lot less RAM than Apache did.
That's really what matters to me as I'm on a VPS with limited resources. I'm
happy.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Django with Cherokee web server

[Leonel Nunez]

> Thanks for the advice, but I already know how to optimize django apps
> (documentation covers this well), so I'm not seeking advice on this.
> Neither I'm willing to use Cherokee so I get a magic performance boost
> for my app alone (while it is indeed faster than Apache for serving
> static content).
>
> Instead, I'm looking for advice from someone who already deployed
> Django with Cherokee.


I use   Django + cherokee.

Works great, you can use for load balancing your django apps, or use as a
proxy, or just server static content


saludos

Leonel





--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Django with Cherokee web server

[hcarvalhoalves]

Thanks for the advice, but I already know how to optimize django apps
(documentation covers this well), so I'm not seeking advice on this.
Neither I'm willing to use Cherokee so I get a magic performance boost
for my app alone (while it is indeed faster than Apache for serving
static content).

Instead, I'm looking for advice from someone who already deployed
Django with Cherokee.

On Oct 7, 2:41 am, Graham Dumpleton 
wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:34 pm, hcarvalhoalves  wrote:
>
>
>
> > I recently found this web server (http://www.cherokee-project.com/)
> > that claims to be "the fastest web server". I'm not sure that holds
> > true for *CGI, but at least for static content they have some
> > impressive benchmarks. Despite the claimings, it's an interesting
> > alternative for what it supports out-of-the-box alone: administrative
> > interface, simpler configuration, transparent restart, load balancer,
> > db balancer, virtual hosts, TLS, and some other cool, easy to setup
> > features.
>
> > Setting it up for working with Django is a breeze (http://www.cherokee-
> > project.com/doc/cookbook_django.html) and I already did some tests,
> > now I'm considering trying it in production.
>
> > I wanted to know if someone here on the list is using or used Cherokee
> > with Django, if there's any performance improvements over Apache +
> > mod_wsgi/mod_python (specially for concurrent requests), and if there
> > are any gotchas with Django 1.1.
>
> Repeat after me 100 times. The bottleneck is not the web server, it is
> your application logic, use of caching and the database.
>
> Chase the mythical fastest web server in the world, of which there are
> many to choose from based on claims they all make, but you will be
> wasting your time. If you want better performance, you are better off
> focusing on addressing the performance problems your own application
> and the database introduces.
>
> So, just use whatever web server you have a tendency to like, that you
> find easy to configure and maintain, and which you perceive as being
> stable. After all, you don't want to have to tangle with the web
> server, you will need all the time you have to make your own
> application work better.
>
> 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 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Django with Cherokee web server

[Graham Dumpleton]

On Oct 7, 3:34 pm, hcarvalhoalves  wrote:
> I recently found this web server (http://www.cherokee-project.com/)
> that claims to be "the fastest web server". I'm not sure that holds
> true for *CGI, but at least for static content they have some
> impressive benchmarks. Despite the claimings, it's an interesting
> alternative for what it supports out-of-the-box alone: administrative
> interface, simpler configuration, transparent restart, load balancer,
> db balancer, virtual hosts, TLS, and some other cool, easy to setup
> features.
>
> Setting it up for working with Django is a breeze (http://www.cherokee-
> project.com/doc/cookbook_django.html) and I already did some tests,
> now I'm considering trying it in production.
>
> I wanted to know if someone here on the list is using or used Cherokee
> with Django, if there's any performance improvements over Apache +
> mod_wsgi/mod_python (specially for concurrent requests), and if there
> are any gotchas with Django 1.1.

Repeat after me 100 times. The bottleneck is not the web server, it is
your application logic, use of caching and the database.

Chase the mythical fastest web server in the world, of which there are
many to choose from based on claims they all make, but you will be
wasting your time. If you want better performance, you are better off
focusing on addressing the performance problems your own application
and the database introduces.

So, just use whatever web server you have a tendency to like, that you
find easy to configure and maintain, and which you perceive as being
stable. After all, you don't want to have to tangle with the web
server, you will need all the time you have to make your own
application work better.

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 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Django with Cherokee web server

[hcarvalhoalves]

I recently found this web server (http://www.cherokee-project.com/)
that claims to be "the fastest web server". I'm not sure that holds
true for *CGI, but at least for static content they have some
impressive benchmarks. Despite the claimings, it's an interesting
alternative for what it supports out-of-the-box alone: administrative
interface, simpler configuration, transparent restart, load balancer,
db balancer, virtual hosts, TLS, and some other cool, easy to setup
features.

Setting it up for working with Django is a breeze (http://www.cherokee-
project.com/doc/cookbook_django.html) and I already did some tests,
now I'm considering trying it in production.

I wanted to know if someone here on the list is using or used Cherokee
with Django, if there's any performance improvements over Apache +
mod_wsgi/mod_python (specially for concurrent requests), and if there
are any gotchas with Django 1.1.

Thanks!

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---