From: Q <qd...@gm...> - 2012-02-19 05:24:21
|
I added this sample config a few years ago. It worked great back then, but I didn't end up using it much so I'm not sure what drawbacks there might be. https://github.com/projectwonder/wonder/blob/master/Utilities/Adaptors/FastCGI/nginx.conf On 17/02/2012, at 5:26 PM, Johann Werner wrote: > Hi Aaron, > > nginx seems to be a very good alternative to the full blown Apache – most of Apache's features won't be used anyway. I cannot give any info for running with the FastCGI adaptor as I never used it but perhaps you should just try setting up a test server and see if it works (you mentioned a problem with multipart form submission, so you could use a test app that uses ERAttachment). > Nginx apparently is extendable by modules as Apache does. Perhaps there is any chance that someone with good C experience ports the Apache adaptor to nginx? *dream mode off* > > jw > > > Am 16.02.2012 um 04:31 schrieb Aaron Rosenzweig: > >> Hello WOrriors, >> >> Thank you all who have spent time developing solutions to host WO >> apps. From the early days of "WOLastic" for EC2 to the latest >> presentations by Pascal, Miguel, and David LeBer. >> >> Cut to the chase: >> ==================== >> Should we stop using Apache and use Nginx with a FastCGI adaptor for >> all our servers? >> >> A bit more detail: >> ==================== >> Nginx is a webserver that has been around a while and is very memory >> efficient. Sounds like a better choice for not only VPS (virtual >> private servers / cloud computers) but also for any server. This being >> said, I bet 98% of us use Apache, most likely because it is installed >> already on OS X... but these are post Xserve day perhaps we should >> reconsider our web server. >> >> Drinking from fire hose amount of detail: >> ==================== >> I enjoyed the screencasts presented at the last WOWODC regarding >> Xserve alternatives which discussed various choices in getting your >> apps out and deployed for the world to use. [I missed seeing you guys >> in person] I was shocked to see the amount of Ram we tended to use. Do >> we really need 2 gigs of Ram to run a WO server. Really? What about >> the good old days when Chrysler financial ran on machines with >> probably 128 megs of Ram or less. >> >> Part of the problem appears to be Linux. From what I've read, running >> the same services will take one third the amount of Ram if run on >> FreeBSD. >> >> I don't know if this is still the case but back in the day when dual >> CPU motherboards first came out and operating systems struggled to >> provide SMP (Symmetric Multi Processing), FreeBSD and OSX used in- >> process-threads to run on multiple cpus. In contrast, Linux simply >> "forked" a new process level thread in Java. We're talking "p-threads" >> vs. "k-threads" here. This "worked" and allowed usage of all your cpu >> cores but was rather heavy. Do you really need a new OS process for >> each thread? >> >> Finally, Apache seems a bit "fat". It too will fork a new process for >> each incoming connection. If too many people connect to your webserver >> at the same time Apache will fall over due to lack of Ram. In >> contrast, nginx will sip Ram and happily munch on each connection >> quickly with its internal event driven nature. >> >> I realize Apache has been on Mac OS X forever and we are all comfy >> with it. If for no other reason, "we know it works" is the best >> argument I can see to not play with nginx. I just don't want to >> purchase a 2 gig VPS for that reason alone... I'd rather experiment. >> >> Can anyone tell me why I should *not* try Nginx with the FastCGI >> adaptor? I read rumblings that it was broken with multi-part mime >> binary form submission but later fixed. Did this ever make it into the >> Wonder code base FastCGI adaptor? Does anyone happily run nginx with >> the FastCGI adaptor today? >> >> Many thanks, >> -- Aaron >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning >> Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing >> also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. >> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning > Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing > also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ > _______________________________________________ > Wonder-disc mailing list > Won...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wonder-disc |