Thanks everyone, for getting this issue resolved... Web2py rocks! Cheers, Rahul
On Jul 24, 6:25 pm, Phyo Arkar <phyo.arkarl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes , Since from start of web2py , Massimo and Us never recommend to use > built-in web2py server at production. They are mainly for development > purpose. > Since Very start of the project , since Cherrypy , Massimo always Suggest to > use Apache/Cherokee/LighHTTPD over fcgi/wsgi/uwsgi or mod_python in Serious > Production Server. > > Rocket tho tries quite hard to achieve production level Performance with all > Cool Comet/Threading Stuff . It still Quite Young .Lets give it a chance. > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Scott <blueseas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Please allow me to preface my comments: I have nothing against Rocket; > > my opinions come from years of experience with Java EE deployments. > > > I think raising the max_threads to 1024 is a good idea. However, my > > opinion is that Rocket alone should not be used for a production > > deployment; much as I would not use the built-in Web server in JBoss, > > WebLogic, Geronimo, etc. as the front door. My suggestion for > > production would be to use an Apache front-end into Rocket. Apache is > > more battle-hardened in this area, and it's a lot easier to handle DoS > > attacks through modules such as mod_evasive. There are numerous other > > benefits too, such as easily enabling gzip compression and allowing > > you a better security model through Defense in Depth... but I digress. > > > On Jul 23, 5:41 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > > > On a second thought this open the door to more sever denial of service > > > attacks than caused by the original problem. How about, until there is > > > a better under understanding and solution, we just increase > > > max_threads from the original 128 to 1024. > > > > On Jul 22, 11:27 am, Timbo <tfarr...@owassobible.org> wrote: > > > > > Try one quick change for me please...rocketis constructed around line > > > > 655 in main.py > > > > > Add a parameter to the constructor call(s): max_threads=0 > > > > > Please let me know if that affects the problem. > > > > > -tim > > > > > On Jul 22, 10:34 am, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > > > > > > I can reproduce the problem. I did on localhost with two different > > > > > browsers. > > > > > Using firebug I can see it takes 25seconds to download base.css (the > > > > > problem is not always with the same file). > > > > > While I did the test, I also monitored httpserver.log and I find that > > > > > it NEVER takes more than 1.2ms serve base.css. > > > > > This is what the log shows: > > > > > > .... > > > > > 127.0.0.1, 2010-07-22 10:16:38, GET, /michealellistest/static/images/ > > > > > header.png, HTTP/1.1, 304, 0.000563 > > > > > 127.0.0.1, 2010-07-22 10:16:38, GET, /favicon.ico, HTTP/1.1, 400, > > > > > 0.000631 > > > > > 127.0.0.1, 2010-07-22 10:16:55, GET, /michealellistest/static/ > > > > > base.css, HTTP/1.1, 304, 0.000791 #### locks firefox for 25secs > > > > > .... > > > > > 127.0.0.1, 2010-07-22 10:22:42, GET, /michealellistest/static/ > > > > > jquery.timers-1.2.js, HTTP/1.1, 304, 0.000552 > > > > > 127.0.0.1, 2010-07-22 10:22:42, GET, /favicon.ico, HTTP/1.1, 400, > > > > > 0.000497 > > > > > 127.0.0.1, 2010-07-22 10:23:02, GET, /michealellistest/static/ > > > > > superfish.js, HTTP/1.1, 304, 0.000914 #### locks chrome for 25secs > > > > > > Do you see the time gaps? > > > > > > There is a clear pattern. Under heavy load a request that results in > > a > > > > > HTTP 400 error locksRocket. > > > > > > Notice that the logging is done by a wsgi application that calls > > > > > web2py wsgibase, i.e it time how long it takes web2py to receive the > > > > > request and send the response. The extra time must be spent inside > > the > > > > > web server. > > > > > > It is also important that the times showed in the logs are the actual > > > > > time when the data is being written in the logs. You can see firefox > > > > > waiting for base.css, the server waiting to log base.css and nothing > > > > > else is being printed during the wait, signifying that web2py is not > > > > > running any request. > > > > > > We need Tim! This is a problem. > > > > > > Massimo > > > > > > On Jul 22, 9:22 am, Michael Ellis <michael.f.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I've isolated the problem but absolutely do not understand it. I > > can > > > > > > reproduce it with a two-line change to web2py_ajax.html. Will > > someone with > > > > > > the time and equipment please attempt to replicate this as a > > sanity check? > > > > > > > Here's how: > > > > > > > In the welcome app's web2py_ajax.html, insert the following after > > line 3. > > > response.files.insert(3,URL(r=request,c='static',f='jquery.sparkline.js')) > > > response.files.insert(4,URL(r=request,c='static',f='jquery.timers-1.2.js')) > > > > > > > Copy the attached js files into welcome/static. They should be the > > same as > > > > > > the versions available online. > > > > > > > To reproduce the problem, serve web2py on your LAN. Open the > > welcome home > > > > > > page on two different machines. One of them can be on the server. > > Briskly > > > > > > reload the page 10 or more times on either machine then try to > > reload on the > > > > > > other. In my setup, the delay is reliably 25 seconds from the time > > I make > > > > > > the last click on the first machine. > > > > > > > I'm able to reproduce this in FF, Chrome, and Safari using the > > latest web2py > > > > > > from trunk. Haven't tried any other browsers yet. As noted > > previously both > > > > > > machines are MacBooks running Snow Leopard. > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > jquery.timers-1.2.js > > > > > > 4KViewDownload > > > > > > > jquery.sparkline.js > > > > > > 62KViewDownload
