Hi Roberto, On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:31:56 +0100 "Roberto De Ioris" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I recall the other day we spoke about --idle option: maybe it would > > be possible to implement it on per-worker basis rather than on > > per-instance (all workers) basis ? > > > yes, but i am not sure if: > > - you are speaking about destroying a single worker after inactivity > > - you are speaking about recycling a worker after a fixed amount of > time (instead of the number of managed requests) Destroy (cheap out) worker after X seconds of activity - this is pretty much what PassengerPoolIdleTime option does in Passenger. > both solutions are pretty easy to accomplish (and the first one could > be done simply tuning the cheaper mode) True although currently cheaper mode does not take into account timing factor (eg. destroy child after X seconds). > > Well, spawning a worker is an expensive task whereas cheaping them > > out (as name suggests) is cheap - that why in some cases keeping > > them around might be handy.. but then you are facing other > > problems :-) > > that's why multiple cheaper algos exists (and more will be added). > Stackable cheaper algos will be another interesting feature (multiple > algos will be run in sequence to choose who shall die) That's very good news. Is API going to be extended ? So far API only allowed to tell if we want to increase/decrease number of workers without telling eg. which one should die. Marcin _______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list [email protected] http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
