11–20 of 36 posts
I'm not clear on the advantages of using nginx+Gunicorn over nginx+proxy-to-Apache/mod_wsgi
Everyone always shows a single server setup. What if you have a dozen sites? You can't just give each one 9 processes, you will swamp your box. Is there any way to do a master setup where you can dynamically feed it your settings file?
it's pretty easy to add multiple upstream servers to nginx. If you're at that point you want to be reading the docs and understanding what's going on anyway. Also gunicorn wants n+1 workers, where n is the number of cores you want to devote to it. It's in the docs. So an 8 core machine would want 9 workers. If you've got multi server scaling issues, cut and paste won't help you.
you want something like: include /etc/nginx/vhosts/enabled/*
and just put your server directives into files that are in enabled.
I'm not clear on the advantages of using nginx+Gunicorn over nginx+proxy-to-Apache/mod_wsgi
A lot of people use apache+nginx+mod_wsgi combination, but it seems to me that's more complicated than having just one web server. Apache might be more versatile, but if used with wsgi, and if you use nginx as well anyways, I don't see the need for all the bells and whistles apache has?
Everyone always shows a single server setup. What if you have a dozen sites? You can't just give each one 9 processes, you will swamp your box. Is there any way to do a master setup where you can dynamically feed it your settings file?
If you're already running a dozen sites on one server, collectively they're probably not getting very much traffic. You may very well be able to use a large number of processes just fine.
Am I the only one who's never had gunicorn crash on him? I don't run supervisor or anything, but I've never had any issues either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people use apache+nginx+mod_wsgi combination, but it seems to me that's more complicated than having just one web server. Apache might be more versatile, but if used with wsgi, and if you use nginx as well anyways, I don't see the need for all the bells and whistles apache has?
Apache is also very well-tested and extremely reliable. For some people and organizations, that's a very important factor.
It's great that you have a setup you know and are comfortable with, but for those of us that would like to explore all options these posts are very helpful. It sucks you have to dismiss this as a ploy to be "hip".
I'm not clear on the advantages of using nginx+Gunicorn over nginx+proxy-to-Apache/mod_wsgi
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're already running a dozen sites on one server, collectively they're probably not getting very much traffic. You may very well be able to use a large number of processes just fine.
That is probably true CPU wise, I am just worried about memory. If each process is 50 MB and you have 12 servers and 9 processes per, that is over 5 GB. If my machine only has 4 GB of RAM some of those processes must be in the swap file.
django also has a sites package, so you can run multiple sites per django instance. it's less encapsulated but if you run a high number of websites with a low amount of traffic each it makes a lot of sense.