Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Starman and upload progress
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  2 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Bill Moseley  
View profile  
 More options Oct 23 2012, 1:08 pm
From: Bill Moseley <mose...@hank.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:07:50 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 23 2012 1:07 pm
Subject: Starman and upload progress

It appears that when using Starman (with Catalyst) that requests are
bufferend before passing off to the app.   What happens is that the
Catalyst UploadProgress plugin does not see any data until it's all been
sent to the server.  (So, the progress bar stays at 0% until the upload is
complete and then quickly jumps to 100%.)

Wondering how best to address this issue.

A few questions:

Am I correct that this buffering of the upload request happens in the
Starman child/worker process -- so although Catalyst isn't seeing the
request until the upload has completed the process is still busy?   That
is, it's not like store-and-forward done by Nginx or Perlbal where the
 process is free to handle other requests during this time?

At one point we were using Perlbal for balancing -- on separate machines
than the web servers with heartbeat and failover.   Now we have good
hardware load balancers.   I'd prefer to not run a another set of balancers
in this setup, so was thinking of running Nginx or Perlbal on *each* web
server.   See any disadvantage of this kind of configuration?

Any other configurations to consider?

Thanks,

--
Bill Moseley
mose...@hank.org


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Tatsuhiko Miyagawa  
View profile  
 More options Oct 23 2012, 1:11 pm
From: Tatsuhiko Miyagawa <miyag...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:10:47 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 23 2012 1:10 pm
Subject: Re: Starman and upload progress

Correct.

> At one point we were using Perlbal for balancing -- on separate machines
> than the web servers with heartbeat and failover.   Now we have good
> hardware load balancers.   I'd prefer to not run a another set of balancers
> in this setup, so was thinking of running Nginx or Perlbal on each web
> server.   See any disadvantage of this kind of configuration?

Perlbal does its own buffering for uploads, depending on its configuration.

> Any other configurations to consider?

> Thanks,

> --
> Bill Moseley
> mose...@hank.org

> --

--
Tatsuhiko Miyagawa

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »