Open Stack

Folks

I just suggested to untie keystone from wsgi and implement uwsgi support.
And then let the user decide what he or she wants.

There is a plenty of auth modules for nginx also.

Nginx us much better as a proxy server and you know it.

Regarding mod wsgi and apache we already saw that it cannot handle simple
restart. I think this is not in any way acceptable from operations point if
view.
18 сент. 2015 г. 18:59 пользователь "Fox, Kevin M" <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov>
написал:

> Part of the reason to use Apache though is the diverse set of
> authentication mechanisms it supports. Operators have the desire to plugin
> Keystone into their existing authentication systems and Apache tends to be
> easier to do that then others.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> ________________________________________
> From: Jim Rollenhagen [jim at jimrollenhagen.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 7:04 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Apache2 vs uWSGI vs ...
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 06:48:50PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > In the fuel project, we recently ran into a couple of issues with
> Apache2 +
> > mod_wsgi as we switched Keystone to run . Please see [1] and [2].
> >
> > Looking deep into Apache2 issues specifically around "apache2ctl
> graceful"
> > and module loading/unloading and the hooks used by mod_wsgi [3]. I
> started
> > wondering if Apache2 + mod_wsgi is the "right" solution and if there was
> > something else better that people are already using.
> >
> > One data point that keeps coming up is, all the CI jobs use Apache2 +
> > mod_wsgi so it must be the best solution....Is it? If not, what is?
>
> Disclaimer: it's been a while since I've cared about performance with a
> web server in front of a Python app.
>
> IIRC, mod_wsgi was abandoned for a while, but I think it's being worked
> on again. In general, I seem to remember it being thought of as a bit
> old and crusty, but mostly working.
>
> At a previous job, we switched from Apache2 + mod_wsgi to nginx + uwsgi[0]
> and saw a significant performance increase. This was a Django app. uwsgi
> is fairly straightforward to operate and comes loaded with a myriad of
> options[1] to help folks make the most of it. I've played with Ironic
> behind uwsgi and it seemed to work fine, though I haven't done any sort
> of load testing. I'd encourage folks to give it a shot. :)
>
> Of course, uwsgi can also be ran behind Apache2, if you'd prefer.
>
> gunicorn[2] is another good option that may be worth investigating; I
> personally don't have any experience with it, but I seem to remember
> hearing it has good eventlet support.
>
> // jim
>
> [0] https://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
> [1] https://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.org/en/latest/Options.html
> [2] http://gunicorn.org/
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150918/5365344c/attachment.html>