On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:50 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martin@v.loewis.de">martin@v.loewis.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">> * Move the PyPI installation to mod_wsgi (I believe it is using FCGI<br>
> now?)<br>
<br>
</div>For the latter: correct.<br>
<br>
For the former (use mod_wsgi): I had actually implemented it, but needed<br>
to revert to FCGI, because mod_wsgi would cause too many hanging servers.<br></blockquote><div><br>I'm surprised, what specific mod_wsgi configuration did you try? I've had good luck with a using a daemon process and making sure no process lives too long. There's another configuration of mod_wsgi that runs Python in the Apache process, which I've never used and doesn't seem like a good idea to me.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
> This is largely work that would have to happen to move to a CDN, but<br>
> it's simpler (given how PyPI works now) and I believe will relieve most<br>
> of the problems we've seen.<br>
<br>
</div>As for the switch to WSGI: it will *introduce* new problems.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> PyPI right now is really quite reliable,<br>
> these small changes would I think be low-risk and less likely to<br>
> introduce new problems while addressing what I suspect is the source of<br>
> problems.<br>
<br>
</div>I disagree that these are small and low-risk. The WSGI switch will risk<br>
stability; the others (generate static pages) will not be small, and<br>
risk correctness.<br></blockquote></div><br>I don't really know how to describe "small" or "low-risk"... maybe I should say "smaller" and "lesser-risk" than the full CDN proposal.<br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>Ian Bicking | <a href="http://blog.ianbicking.org">http://blog.ianbicking.org</a><br>