Recommendation for small, fast, Python based web server
in [Python]
|
Prev: a huge shared read-only data in parallel accesses -- How? multithreading? multiprocessing?
Next: Parsing json where object keys are not quoted?
From: Tim Chase on 9 Dec 2009 16:27 python(a)bdurham.com wrote: > I'm looking for a small, simple, fast, Python based web server > for a simple, client side application we're building. I've used WebStack[1] for this in the past. It allows for stand-alone serving as well as plugging nicely into various "real" servers (apache+mod_python, etc) with a small tweak in how it's configured. > I've looked at the web servers that come bundled with the Python > standard library[1] and they are too slow. I suspect this is > because they don't maintain a session between the client and > server, thus every GET/POST request repeats the session setup and > break down process. Or they might be based on a polling model? I'm not sure what caused the slowness you've experienced -- using Python in a CGI environment requires starting the Python interpreter each time. However if the interpreter starts just once, I've not had notable performance issues for low-volume sites (using the BaseHTTP builtin). For higher-volume sites, you might reach for Twisted which WebStack supports as well. I believe both WebStack and Twisted are redistribtable as needed. -tkc [1] http://www.boddie.org.uk/python/WebStack.html
From: Daniel Fetchinson on 9 Dec 2009 18:30 > I'm looking for a small, simple, fast, Python based web server > for a simple, client side application we're building. We don't > want to distrubute and support a "real" web server like Apache or > Tomcat or depend on the presence of local web server such as IIS. > The application in question will service AJAX requests from a > browser. > > We're not looking for a web framework like Django, Plone, etc. > > I've looked at the web servers that come bundled with the Python > standard library[1] and they are too slow. I suspect this is > because they don't maintain a session between the client and > server, thus every GET/POST request repeats the session setup and > break down process. Or they might be based on a polling model? > > Here are the other Python based web server implementations I'm > aware of: > - cherrypy > - web.py > - twisted > > Any recommendations appreciated (Python 2.6 preferred but open to > Python 3.1 options). I'm using cherrypy for this purpose, actually together with turbogears 1. Cheers, Daniel -- Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown
From: python on 9 Dec 2009 19:00 Tim, > I've used WebStack[1] for this in the past. It allows for stand-alone serving as well as plugging nicely into various "real" servers (apache+mod_python, etc) with a small tweak in how it's configured. Thanks for that recommendation. > I'm not sure what caused the slowness you've experienced (... with running local versions of Python web servers) Thanks to a past post by "Christoph Zwerschke" <cito(a)online.de>, I was able to identify the problem. Windows (XP, Vista, Windows 7) tries to do a IPV6 connection which times out after a second followed by an IPV4 connection which is almost instantaneous. Apparently this is a known problem that is a Windows issue [1] - not a Python problem. Two workarounds: 1. Use 127.0.0.1 as your URL vs. localhost -OR- 2. Edit your Windows hosts file (c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts) and create a virtual domain name, eg. put the following on a line by itself: 127.0.0.1 mydomain.someext And then use mydomain.someext vs. localhost Note: Editing your hosts file requires admin rights under Vista and Windows 7. Regards, Malcolm [1] http://schotime.net/blog/index.php/2008/05/27/slow-tcpclient-connection-sockets/
From: python on 9 Dec 2009 19:05 Daniel, > I'm using cherrypy for this purpose, actually together with turbogears 1. My research has constantly pointed back to cherrypy as a tool of choice for building local web servers. My initial impression was that cherrypy was too big and complicated for my simple task. However, I'm going to re-examine this assumption and take another look at cherrypy. Thanks for your help! Regards, Malcolm
From: birdsong on 9 Dec 2009 19:27
On Dec 9, 4:05 pm, pyt...(a)bdurham.com wrote: > Daniel, > > > I'm using cherrypy for this purpose, actually together with turbogears 1. > > My research has constantly pointed back to cherrypy as a tool of choice > for building local web servers. My initial impression was that cherrypy > was too big and complicated for my simple task. However, I'm going to > re-examine this assumption and take another look at cherrypy. > > Thanks for your help! > > Regards, > Malcolm tornado all the way, it is teh radness: http://www.tornadoweb.org/ epoll based python server. fun to hack on. def check it out. |