3 ms·

But he's arguing against the idea of having a small number of processes -- he seems to want a single monolithic process per machine, with a native threadpool an

by blasdel 17y ago

But he's arguing against the idea of having a small number of processes -- he seems to want a single monolithic process per machine, with a native threadpool and multiple interpreters to get around GILs. The idea of rolling multiple interpreters into a single process is especially bad for python, as it has a real garbage collector and os.fork()-ed processes will share a lot of memory. It makes some sense for Ruby, since its assy mark-and-sweep will invalidate every single page on the next collection after a fork().

audidude 17y ago
I tried to argue that was an implementation detail with sacrifices no matter which direction you go. One could also argue that its problematic to deal with run-away runtimes with memory issues. The GC does provide an interesting problem I didn't consider. Especially those that over-utilize OS signals. Perhaps the choice of Python was poor for this. You can still separate it into two fundamental shifts. The first being making a fully asynchronous/event driven module/handler API. This should be done regardless of the runtime module. The massively-scaled websites I've seen would tip with 4-8 times the sql connections. SQL Server is especially bad at this. It also makes it hard to simply throw additional hardware at the problem. I guess you could yield on resources from a master process if you have the logic to know their status.
- peoplerock 17y ago
  @audidude: FYI - your server (www.audidude.com) is either being hit really hard right now or is completely down. Without access to the original post there, this noob can only assume(hope) the discussion is about the Tornado Web Server (http://www.tornadoweb.org/ http://www.tornadoweb.org/). I'm interested in alternatives to Apache, so am looking forward to you being back online. Gracias.

3 ms·

But he's arguing against the idea of having a small number of processes -- he seems to want a single monolithic process per machine, with a native threadpool an

by blasdel 17y ago

audidude 17y ago
I tried to argue that was an implementation detail with sacrifices no matter which direction you go. One could also argue that its problematic to deal with run-away runtimes with memory issues. The GC does provide an interesting problem I didn't consider. Especially those that over-utilize OS signals. Perhaps the choice of Python was poor for this. You can still separate it into two fundamental shifts. The first being making a fully asynchronous/event driven module/handler API. This should be done regardless of the runtime module. The massively-scaled websites I've seen would tip with 4-8 times the sql connections. SQL Server is especially bad at this. It also makes it hard to simply throw additional hardware at the problem. I guess you could yield on resources from a master process if you have the logic to know their status.
- peoplerock 17y ago
  @audidude: FYI - your server (www.audidude.com) is either being hit really hard right now or is completely down. Without access to the original post there, this noob can only assume(hope) the discussion is about the Tornado Web Server (http://www.tornadoweb.org/ http://www.tornadoweb.org/). I'm interested in alternatives to Apache, so am looking forward to you being back online. Gracias.