Hacker News Reader

Comment by mYk | Hacker News Reader

The C10k problem was originally about serving static files -- quoting the page you linked to: "take four kilobytes from the disk and send them to the network".

The demo could certainly be extended to send larger amounts of data -- left as an exercise for the reader.

I'm not sure to understand your second paragraph -- if I used this system in a real application, I would serve the pages with the traditional handler (with template rendering, middleware, etc.) and then exchange messages over the websocket. These are different roles.

Regarding database connections, the default behavior isn't the one you're describing any more; I implemented persistent connections in Django a few weeks ago.

View on HN

By "implemented", do you mean "contributed to trunk", or "used it in my application"? If the former, thanks, if the latter, I was under the impression that it was on by default in 1.5?

Looks like it will be available in the next (1.6?) release[1].

[1] https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/databases/#persist...

Oh right, 1.5 and earlier. I misread that, thank you.

Static files are no longer a problem thanks to Varnish or nginx. And this is Django, after all, so please focus on dynamic content performance.

I'm glad to hear that Django managed to get persistent db connections after years of "just use PgPool/PgBouncer". Keep up the good work!

Yes, I'm just referring to C10k because this demo uses a technique originally created to solve C10k.

Reaching 10 000 connections wasn't difficult in this case; it was just a matter of tuning a few system parameters. Exploring the APIs and studying how they can fit together was much more interesting, and sometimes challenging.

Awesome stuff!

Well, about PgBouncer, I believe this tells more of PostgreSQL than of Django + psql libraries

(After all it will still open and close connections for Django but keeps them open for psql)

Now, for serving 10k connections with template libraries and middlewares and ORM, out of the box? Serving dynamic content for each connection? Impossible =)

Not without some kind of caching (but you can do that with the help of a middleware)

It's not PostgreSQL's fault that Django closes the connection after each request explicitly (see close_connection() for what was done before 1.6):

[1] https://github.com/django/django/blob/master/django/db/__ini...

I understand that, and I'm not saying that there aren't several issues in Django (but some are getting better)

What I'm saying is that with PgBouncer you have Django <> PgBouncer <> Postgresql, right?

So what PgBouncer is doing (dealing with several open/close connections) maybe could be done better inside PostgreSQL

Reply on news.ycombinator.com