Thanks.

Regarding quixote/doc/multi-threaded.txt, is that a relic from the past,
(version 0.6) or is it commonly used?

SteveO


-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Fawcett [mailto:fawcett@uwindsor.ca]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 10:06 AM
To: Orr, Steve
Cc: quixote-users@mems-exchange.org
Subject: Re: [Quixote-users] Quixote on mod_python... Or something else.

On 3/17/2006 11:48 AM, Orr, Steve wrote:

>Finally, I'm curious as to how many implementations of Quixote are on
>mod_python. My sense is not many because of the comments found in
>quixote/server/mod_python_handler.py. If you have experience with
>Quixote/mod_python I'd like to know all the good, the bad, and the
ugly.
>For mere survey type responses, to prevent list clutter, feel free to
>email me directly with Quixote/mod_python versions implemented type
>info. Of course if you have horror stories or great successes
>(benchmarked?) then it would be good to share warnings against or
>recommendations for Quixote-on-mod_python with the list.
>

A purely anecdotal, ancient-history lesson: about 4-5 years ago, I found

that mod_python + Quixote was quite flaky under load. Particularly, it
tended to result in a high percentage of dropped client connections, and

ocassionally in hanging Apache! (I think the server-hang was on win32
only, but I don't remember for sure). I think the problems were
attributable to mod_python, more than to Quixote or the
Quixote/mod_python connector.

In that round of tests, I chose SCGI over mod_python purely because
Apache+SCGI did a better job of managing multiple concurrent requests
under heavy load (even when the number of SCGI processes was low),
though mod_python seemed to perform as well as SCGI under smaller loads.

No matter what you choose, be sure to pound on it ocasionally, as hard
as you can, to see how your selected tools work when the going gets
tough (unless its guaranteed never to become a high-demand application).

Graham