[kforge-dev] KForge and Apache prefork

Rufus Pollock rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Fri Aug 27 07:56:54 UTC 2010

cc'ing kforge-dev.

On 26 August 2010 20:41, John Bywater
<john.bywater at appropriatesoftware.net> wrote:
> William Waites wrote:
>> I recommend not using mod_python ever. For anything. There is
>> no good reason to embed a python interpreter inside the web
>> server (I agree with the uwsgi docs where they take the same
>> position).
>> What I suggest is either to use simple fastcgi or else uwsgi,
>> listening on a unix domain socket (no need for TCP overhead).
>> In a multi-process configuration for the same reasons as "prefork".
>> Separate out the worker processes. Let them be visible with
>> ps(1)!
>> Just my £0.02
> Thanks for that Will! There's a ticket to make KForge do mod_wsgi, here:
> http://knowledgeforge.net/kforge/trac/ticket/56
> There's also a ticket to make KForge do mod_fastcgi, here:
> http://knowledgeforge.net/kforge/trac/ticket/57

The problem with both of these is that KForge relies on some specific
features of mod-python at the moment to do authentication. If that
dependency were removed (by e.g. moving to a front-controller
architecture with proxying).

> Given a choice between running KForge/mod_python with either prefork or
> worker, which would you suggest?
> Or, do you think we could implement your suggestions without changing
> KForge?

We can't do that given the current setup unfortunately :(

Open Knowledge Foundation
Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/

More information about the kforge-dev mailing list