3 ms·
Uhm...am I misunderstanding something? It sounds to me like the author is saying we should be spending time tuning UWSGI's plethora of configuration options rat
by jaytaylor 13y ago
Uhm...am I misunderstanding something? It sounds to me like the author is saying we should be spending time tuning UWSGI's plethora of configuration options rather than using gunicorn. I much prefer components which "just work" for a healthy range of typical use cases.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's cool he made it work.. but seriously?
- zeeg 13y agoThere was absolutely no tuning other than adjusting buffer sizes (which only matters because it accepts large POST packets). The options that a standard application will use are almost identical between the two. UWSGI just provides numerous lower-level options that I (and it sounds like you) probably don't care about.
- jaytaylor 13y agoThank you for the clarification.
- Daishiman 13y agoIf you want performance, tune. If you don't, leave the defaults. How can more options be bad when the default is as good or better than standard Apache + WSGI?