Why not Proxy with Nginx ?

[Luke Macken]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 08:56:07AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Luke Macken wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 06:35:57AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > Stuff like this comes up from time to time and the question I always have
> > > is: What is it we're wanting to do that we can't currently do with the
> > > setup we have now?  We're a group with a lot of turnover and almost
> > > everyone knows how to use apache so why is it worth it to us to switch to
> > > nginx?
> >
> > If we are wanting "to serve static files faster", then yes, Nginx would
> > do that for us[0].  I use Nginx for all of my personal application
> > deployments, and I've been extremely impressed with it's speed and ease
> > of configuration.  However, it's WSGI support is a bit questionable, so
> > we would only want to use it as for serving static files & reverse
> > proxying.  You can also configure it to hit memcached before apache,
> > which is pretty neat.
> >
> 
> That is interesting though, does it just store entire html pages in
> memcached?

As far as I know nginx doesn't store things in memcached itself, but in
your web application you can do fancy things like cache fully rendered
HTML pages in memcached, and you can tell nginx to look there first.

This article, "Pylons on Nginx with Memcached and SSI", is what inspired
me to dive into this stuff a while back:

    http://www.reshetseret.com/app/blog/?p=3

They use a simple decorator to do the caching.  However, this won't work
out of the box with TurboGears2 since there is a piece of ToscaWidgets
middleware that injects the widget resources at the last minute -- so
your cache would be missing a ton of JS and CSS files.  However, I've
been thinking about having Moksha inject a piece of middleware at the
top of the stack to optionally throw the rendered output in memcached.
Anyway... fun stuff :)

luke