Smolt deployment

[seth vidal]

On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 11:43 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > This is mostly for the TurboGears guys in the group.  We've discussed 
> > this a little in the past but I wanted to get something down for sure 
> > before all of our stuff goes live.  Whats going to be our official 
> > deployment method?  Personally I'd vote mod_python though I haven't 
> > actually done this yet.  Does using mod_python still require a proxypass 
> > to a tg port?  I'd tend towards mod_python just because it would behave 
> > just like the rest of our apps do though I know toshio has some neat 
> > script that makes it behave that way too.  What do you guys think?  
> > mod_python may be too complex for what we're trying to accomplish.
> 
> Just some random thoughts as I'm running out the door:
> 
> I have never gotten mod_python to work with a cherrypy/tg based
> application by following the documentation on either project's wikis.
> That said, I haven't tried with TG since 0.8 so perhaps the process (or
> just the documentation) is better now.
> 
> I like the way I'm doing it because I've got it to a state where it
> pretty much just works but if we can do that with mod_python as well,
> that would be fine.  My method is basically Apache proxypassing to the
> turbogears application server.  If the tg server isn't running, the
> proxypass error handler loads a small cgi script that starts the
> turbogears app and once the app responds, sends the user there.
> 
> TurboGears is trying to become more WSGI compliant.  TG-1.1 is supposed
> to use cherrypy-3.0 which has a builtin mod_python->WSGI gateway.  That
> should make mod_python deployment simpler than with cherrypy-2.2.
> 
> So I think -- if we can make mod_python easy to deploy, that seems the
> way to go.  If we can't then I've got something that will work until
> TG-1.1 and a more integrated WSGI implementation.
> 
> Tangentially: We probably want to preserve the ability to run our apps
> on several different servers.  Because python libraries don't do
> versioning (well -- we may be able to do it with setuptools and eggs,
> but that's a long term, distro-wide change.) we can enter situations
> where some web apps depend on TG-1.0 and others on TG-1.1 (or sqlobject
> or python-urlgrabber or...)  Being able to proxy to a xen host during
> transition periods rather than having to upgrade all our web apps at
> once is probably a good thing.

How performant is the tg server? In the past the python webserver was
not exactly a barn burner when it came to performance. It worked, but it
didn't hold up well under heavy load. Having apache in front helps but
just like with zope, if the app is slow, the app is slow.

any load testing done, yet?

-sv