Is Django Threaded Fastcgi Safe?

I am considering switching from mod_python and apache to
lighttpd and
fastcgi because of the large number of virtual hosts I am
serving.

Because each virtual host gets its own sub interpreter, each
apache
instance on my server can weigh in at over 160 megs.

I have heard that apache-mpm, mod_python and Django will not
work, so
I would like to know if using fastcgi with method=threaded
would be a
good way to solve my memory usage problems.

When I start one fastcgi process in threaded mode, it only
uses 8 megs
of memory, which is a lot more scalable than apache
instances weighing
in at 160 megs.

Thoughts, please.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at htt
p://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Also, should I take a look at mod_wsgi?

On Nov 5, 11:22 am, Joe <josephdr...gmail.com> wrote:
> I am considering switching from mod_python and apache
to lighttpd and
> fastcgi because of the large number of virtual hosts I
am serving.
>
> Because each virtual host gets its own sub interpreter,
each apache
> instance on my server can weigh in at over 160 megs.
>
> I have heard that apache-mpm, mod_python and Django
will not work, so
> I would like to know if using fastcgi with
method=threaded would be a
> good way to solve my memory usage problems.
>
> When I start one fastcgi process in threaded mode, it
only uses 8 megs
> of memory, which is a lot more scalable than apache
instances weighing
> in at 160 megs.
>
> Thoughts, please.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at htt
p://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

The latest roundup on thread safety of Django is that
although it was
not designed for thread safety initially, the only known
multithreading problem has been fixed some time back. As
such,
numerous people do run it in Apache worker MPM for UNIX and
on winnt
MPM on Windows, both of which are multithreaded. The Django
instructions even show using multithreaded mode with
FASTCGI, so that
it is present must mean people are having success with it
also.

The important thing though is whether your own application
code built
on top of Django is itself thread. You would therefore need
to ensure
you test you code properly.

Using mod_wsgi is another option and perhaps simpler to
configure and
manage than FASTCGI solutions, especially if the later
requires a
separate supervisor system to startup your FASTCGI processes
and keep
them running. Using mod_wsgi you also have the option of
easily
changing your mind and moving an application back into the
main Apache
child processes (like in mod_python) if performance is more
important
for a specific application than memory consumption.

Graham

On Nov 6, 6:11 am, Joe <josephdr...gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, should I take a look at mod_wsgi?
>
> On Nov 5, 11:22 am, Joe <josephdr...gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am considering switching from mod_python and
apache to lighttpd and
> > fastcgi because of the large number of virtual
hosts I am serving.
>
> > Because each virtual host gets its own sub
interpreter, each apache
> > instance on my server can weigh in at over 160
megs.
>
> > I have heard that apache-mpm, mod_python and
Django will not work, so
> > I would like to know if using fastcgi with
method=threaded would be a
> > good way to solve my memory usage problems.
>
> > When I start one fastcgi process in threaded mode,
it only uses 8 megs
> > of memory, which is a lot more scalable than
apache instances weighing
> > in at 160 megs.
>
> > Thoughts, please.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at htt
p://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Great answer, thank you!

On Nov 5, 5:17 pm, Graham Dumpleton <Graham.Dumple...gmail.com>
wrote:
> The latest roundup on thread safety of Django is that
although it was
> not designed for thread safety initially, the only
known
> multithreading problem has been fixed some time back.
As such,
> numerous people do run it in Apache worker MPM for UNIX
and on winnt
> MPM on Windows, both of which are multithreaded. The
Django
> instructions even show using multithreaded mode with
FASTCGI, so that
> it is present must mean people are having success with
it also.
>
> The important thing though is whether your own
application code built
> on top of Django is itself thread. You would therefore
need to ensure
> you test you code properly.
>
> Using mod_wsgi is another option and perhaps simpler to
configure and
> manage than FASTCGI solutions, especially if the later
requires a
> separate supervisor system to startup your FASTCGI
processes and keep
> them running. Using mod_wsgi you also have the option
of easily
> changing your mind and moving an application back into
the main Apache
> child processes (like in mod_python) if performance is
more important
> for a specific application than memory consumption.
>
> Graham
>
> On Nov 6, 6:11 am, Joe <josephdr...gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, should I take a look at mod_wsgi?
>
> > On Nov 5, 11:22 am, Joe <josephdr...gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I am considering switching from mod_python
and apache to lighttpd and
> > > fastcgi because of the large number of
virtual hosts I am serving.
>
> > > Because each virtual host gets its own sub
interpreter, each apache
> > > instance on my server can weigh in at over
160 megs.
>
> > > I have heard that apache-mpm, mod_python and
Django will not work, so
> > > I would like to know if using fastcgi with
method=threaded would be a
> > > good way to solve my memory usage problems.
>
> > > When I start one fastcgi process in threaded
mode, it only uses 8 megs
> > > of memory, which is a lot more scalable than
apache instances weighing
> > > in at 160 megs.
>
> > > Thoughts, please.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at htt
p://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---