NGinx + wsgi

[Tarek Ziadé]

Hey !

We are building a small server for a new set of APIs for Sync, and am
going to use Nginx instead of Apache for it.

The performances are a bit better, but the big difference is that
Nginx does not eat up your memory like Apache would on high load. The
server stays quite low on memory and is also using less CPU. So the
same hardware scales *way* better. The stress tests I did with
funkload shows how the Apache-based configuration drops on high loads,
while the Nginx one stays really stable.

I have tried two different WSGI backends for Nginx:
- GUnicorn
- uWSGI (now directly available in Nginx 0.8)

Both are performing the same, but GUnicorn is using twice more CPU
than uWSGI. I am investigating on this with the Gunicorn team.

Anyone uses NGinx ?

Cheers
Tarek

--
Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:15, Tarek Ziadé <ziade...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have tried two different WSGI backends for Nginx:
> - GUnicorn
> - uWSGI  (now directly available in Nginx 0.8)
>
> Both are performing the same, but GUnicorn is using twice more CPU
> than uWSGI. I am investigating on this with the Gunicorn team.
>
> Anyone uses NGinx ?

I haven't been using it myself yet, but I also hear good things about
nginx + spawning.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

[Tarek Ziadé]

spawning ! I forgot about that one, thanks for the reminder, I'll try it as well

[Ian Bicking]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Tarek Ziadé <ziade...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have tried two different WSGI backends for Nginx:
- GUnicorn
- uWSGI  (now directly available in Nginx 0.8)

I haven't tried either, but I'm interested in uWSGI, largely because it seems to do process/request monitoring, similar to what mod_wsgi does.

--
Ian Bicking  |  http://blog.ianbicking.org

[Jeff Hammel]

pardon the spam, but if you haven't seen
http://nichol.as/benchmark-of-python-web-servers its a pretty good
basic guide. certainly not thorough, but at least is verbose about
what's actually being done