The keepalive weirdness is gone when we upgraged to a more recent
version of wsgiserver. Some time ago. The only known limitation of the
current web server is failure of ssl for large uploads (and perhaps
downloads?). I run it in production.
Anyway, Tim, here is working on a new web server called
I do not know what "fassimoster" means. I meant to type "faster" but
something weird happened to my editor window.
On Jan 8, 11:28 am, mdipierro wrote:
> The keepalive weirdness is gone when we upgraged to a more recent
> version of wsgiserver. Some time ago. The only known limitation of the
> cu
On Jan 8, 8:46 pm, Timothy Farrell wrote:
> I am still interested to know if anyone uses web2py without an external
> webserver.
I do, on an intranet app for serving automated builds. Very low
concurrency (theoretical maximum of 12 simultaneous connections :).
--
You received this message beca
"would" ? So you don't currently run a setup where you got to choose
how it runs?
I guess readers should take your comments with a grain of salt
considering that in another thread you admit to being a young
developer with not much experience. That's ok. It's good to start
out conservative and g
I have not run any benchmark but it seems to me that running Apache
provides better customization (like multiple domains, deny access to
specific domains, better ssl support than wsgiserver) and speed for
static files. Probably it does not make a major different when serving
dynamic content in term
ajjajaja very nice Massimo...
you are trying to invent some new adjetives for web2py!
Alex
El 08/01/2010 18:30, mdipierro escribió:
I do not know what "fassimoster" means. I meant to type "faster" but
something weird happened to my editor window.
On Jan 8, 11:28 am, mdipierro wrote:
The k
My motivation for developing Rocket wasn't speed as much as it was
concurrency. wsgiserver drops to 9% of its max throughput when
processing 25 concurrent connections and that drop continues downward as
more concurrent connections happen**. In contrast, Rocket drops to 53%
of its max at 25 co
I would never use the built in server for production.
I will stick it on a linux server, running apache to server web2py and
nginx to serve static files.
I'm an extremest, and will use the fastest configuration possible for
every situation, and don't see any situation where I would use the
built-
> "would" ? So you don't currently run a setup where you got to choose
> how it runs?
Your assuming that by saying "would" that I mean "if I had a choice I
would". If I really ment the latter then I would have said the latter.
As a general rhetorical comment, why do people have to put their own
a
It all gets processed to an internal WSGI layer anyways? What does
web2py use as an WSGI layer (request/response)?
I am wondering if while using WSGI and apache, does cherrypy/rocket
get executed regardless?
-Thadeus
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:11 PM, mdipierro wrote:
> etter customization (l
Web2py uses its own "layer" as opposed to using WebOb like some other
frameworks do.
To answer your question, no if you use apache + mod_wsgi no portion of
the bundled webserver is run.
Tim
On Jan 9, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Thadeus Burgess
wrote:
It all gets processed to an internal WSGI l
This is what I gathered from looking at the source code, I just wanted
to make sure.
-Thadeus
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Timothy Farrell wrote:
> Web2py uses its own "layer" as opposed to using WebOb like some other
> frameworks do.
>
> To answer your question, no if you use apache + m
12 matches
Mail list logo
