uWSGI for better performance and memory usage

I've been experimenting with cherokee and uWSGI in development. Has anyone made any comparisons between nginx and cherokee performance with uWSGI on WebFaction servers? I'm curious if there's any notable difference in memory usage or performance, using the same python application (web2py for example). Of course, it would be best if WebFaction would allow use of nginx's native uWSGI connection feature, to avoid the need for any other web server instance or reverse-proxy step.

Hi,

I've not made any comparisons myself and I don't think I've seen any on the web anywhere. We don't allow access to the frontend nginx since it controls all of the sites for every user on the machine so any misconfiguration would take out all sites, that's why we use the reverse-proxy setup.

thanks for providing the walkthrough. I have also had memory problems with Apache.

I found an error with the conf file at step 7. Needed to modify to this:

location / { uwsgi_pass 127.0.0.1:<port>; include uwsgi_params; }

and also manually create the tmp/nginx directory.

Also compile errors when building latest version of uwsgi at step 8. Seems using latest version is unstable so used an older version: http://projects.unbit.it/downloads/uwsgi-0.9.6.5.tar.gz

Now to figure out the wsgi.py part...

Richard

I wonder if there is ever a chance that webfaction would add django/uwsgi to the default list of apps installable through the control panel. I don't imagine it would be very hard for them to implement and would give us a very good option for easily setting up an environment.

joshcartme: Normally we do not add new installers unless there is a very high demand for one.

We have thought of adding an nginx/uwsgi installer in the past and did not because there was not enough demand.

I just put a request for second consideration in our internal tracking system and when we have a decision we will post here.