I have Django running in Apache via mod_wsgi. I believe Django is caching my pages server-side, which is causing some of the functionality to not work correctly.
I have a countdown timer that works by getting the current server time, determining the remaining countdown time, and outputting that number to the HTML template. A javascript countdown timer then takes over and runs the countdown for the user.
The problem arises when the user refreshes the page, or navigates to a different page with the countdown timer. The timer appears to jump around to different times sporadically, usually going back to the same time over and over again on each refresh.
Using HTTPFox, the page is not being loaded from my browser cache, so it looks like either Django or Apache is caching the page. Is there any way to disable this functionality? I'm not going to have enough traffic to worry about caching the script output. Or am I completely wrong about why this is happening?
[Edit] From the posts below, it looks like caching is disabled in Django, which means it must be happening elsewhere, perhaps in Apache?
[Edit] I have a more thorough description of what is happening: For the first 7 (or so) requests made to the server, the pages are rendered by the script and returned, although each of those 7 pages seems to be cached as it shows up later. On the 8th request, the server serves up the first page. On the 9th request, it serves up the second page, and so on in a cycle. This lasts until I restart apache, when the process starts over again.
[Edit] I have configured mod_wsgi to run only one process at a time, which causes the timer to reset to the same value in every case. Interestingly though, there's another component on my page that displays a random image on each request, using order('?'), and that does refresh with different images each time, which would indicate the caching is happening in Django and not in Apache.
[Edit] In light of the previous edit, I went back and reviewed the relevant views.py file, finding that the countdown start variable was being set globally in the module, outside of the view functions. Moving that setting inside the view functions resolved the problem. So it turned out not to be a caching issue after all. Thanks everyone for your help on this.
From my experience with mod_wsgi in Apache, it is highly unlikely that they are causing caching. A couple of things to try:
It is possible that you have some proxy server between your computer and the web server that is appropriately or inappropriately caching pages. Sometimes ISPs run proxy servers to reduce bandwidth outside their network. Can you please provide the HTTP headers for a page that is getting cached (Firebug can give these to you). Headers that I would specifically be interested in include Cache-Control, Expires, Last-Modified, and ETag.
Can you post your MIDDLEWARE_CLASSES from your settings.py file. It possible that you have a Middleware that performs caching for you.
Can you grep your code for the following items "load cache", "django.core.cache", and "cache_page". A *grep -R "search" ** will work.
Does the settings.py (or anything it imports like "from localsettings import *") include CACHE_BACKEND?
What happens when you restart apache? (e.g. sudo services apache restart). If a restart clears the issue, then it might be apache doing caching (it is possible that this could also clear out a locmen Django cache backend)
Did you specifically setup Django caching? From the docs it seems you would clearly know if Django was caching as it requires work beforehand to get it working. Specifically, you need to define where the cached files are saved.
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/cache/
Are you using a multiprocess configuration for Apache/mod_wsgi? If you are, that will account for why different responses can have a different value for the timer as likely that when timer is initialised will be different for each process handling requests. Thus why it can jump around.
Have a read of:
http://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/wiki/ProcessesAndThreading
Work out in what mode or configuration you are running Apache/mod_wsgi and perhaps post what that configuration is. Without knowing, there are too many unknowns.
I just came across this:
Support for Automatic Reloading To help deployment tools you can
activate support for automatic reloading. Whenever something changes
the .wsgi file, mod_wsgi will reload all the daemon processes for us.
For that, just add the following directive to your Directory section:
WSGIScriptReloading On
Related
I built and deployed an app on GAE. Yesterday all seemed to be working fine, sending requests every few seconds to the app would be successful with a response time of about 2.5 seconds. Today GAE keeps deploying a new instance for every request, or fails to create even one, resulting in unacceptably high response times (and much higher charges) or even 500 server errors.
I tried to suspend and restart the app a few times, works again for a couple of requests, then reverts to the same behavior. On the console I can see that a new instance is immediately shut down after serving a request, or in case of server error, that GAE was unable to deploy a new instance.
I checked the quotas on the console, nothing seems to hint that I cannot send multiple requests from the same IP.
Has anyone experienced such issues, and if yes, what could be the cause(s) and remedies? Please note, I am very new to GAE so have no further clue right now on where to start.
EDIT: Just realized the average memory used by an instance (F2 in my case, which gives you 256MB) is very close to the max (250MB). Could it be the issue? I will upgrade to F4 (512MB) and see what happens.
As per the documentation - a new instance may be created based on request rate, response latencies, and other application metrics.
Therefore, it’s expected behaviour for the GAE Standard instances to scale up and down depending on the traffic they receive.
Also, if the maximum memory usage for the instance class is reached, a shutdown process will be triggered as explained here.
As for the failures to create a new instance, it’s hard to tell what may be causing it without the Stackdriver Logging information. At the top of my head, you may receive HTTP 500 errors due to having reached the response limit, but it could indeed happen for any other reason as well.
Finally, taking into account the nature of the issues, I think it’s a good idea testing the GAE app’s behaviour using a better instance class and comparing the results. If you no longer experience this using an F4 instance class, it’s safe to assume that the previous instance class was simply not enough to satisfy the app’s requirements.
Newbie on appengine and I really don't know how to phrase the question which sadly results in me not knowing what keywords to google and I hope that i really do get help other than the bashing that a lot of people do.
I'm confused between the behavior of appengine online and the appengine on the local server.
Background info:
Btw this is in Python
Initially i assumed that , when needed or as authored
an instance of the app or module will be created.
And that instance will be the one serving multiple requests from different clients.
In this behavior any initialization code will only be run once.
But in the local development server.
Every time i add something new, specially in the main.py,
the server is able to catch the new changes,
then on browser-refresh be able to run it.
This made me think, wait...
Does it run the entire script over and over again
on every request?
Question:
Does an instance/module run the entire code on every request or is this just an added behavior to the dev server to make development easier?
Both your assumptions - about behaviour in production and development - are wrong.
In production, GAE spins up instances as required. This may be in response to increased load, or the host may simply decide after a certain amount of time to recycle an instance by killing it and starting a new one. Initialization code will always be run whenever a new instance is started.
In development, you only get a single instance. However, the server watches your file system for changes. If it detects a change to the code itself, it will restart itself, and therefore re-run the initialization code. But if you don't make any code changes between requests, the existing process continues indefinitely, and init code will not be re-run.
I have some test code (as a part of a webapp) that uses urllib2 to perform an operation I would usually perform via a browser:
Log in to a remote website
Move to another page
Perform a POST by filling in a form
I've created 4 separate, clean virtualenvs (with --no-site-packages) on 3 different machines, all with different versions of python but the exact same packages (via pip requirements file), and the code only works on the two virtualenvs on my local development machine(2.6.1 and 2.7.2) - it won't work on either of my production VPSs
In the failing cases, I can log in successfully, move to the correct page but when I submit the form, the remote server replies telling me that there has been an error - it's an application server error page ('we couldn't complete your request') and not a webserver error.
because I can successfully log in and maneuver to a second page, this doesn't seem to be a session or a cookie problem - it's particular to the final POST
because I can perform the operation on a particular machine with the EXACT same headers and data, this doesn't seem to be a problem with what I am requesting/posting
because I am trying the code on two separate VPS rented from different companies, this doesn't seem to be a problem with the VPS physical environment
because the code works on 2 different python versions, I can't imagine it being an incompabilty problem
I'm completely lost at this stage as to why this wouldn't work. I've even 'turned-it-off-and-turn-it-on-again' because I just can't see what the problem could be.
I think it has to be something to do with the final POST coming from a VPS that the remote server doesn't like, but I can't figure out what that could be. I feel like there is something going on under the hood of URLlib that is causing the remote server to dislike the reply.
EDIT
I've installed the exact same Python version (2.6.1) on the VPS as is on my working local copy and it doesn't work remotely, so it must be something to do with originating from a VPS. How could this effect the Http request? Is it something lower level?
You might try setting the debuglevel=1 for urllib2 and see what it comes up with:
import urllib2
h=urllib2.HTTPHandler(debuglevel=1)
opener = urllib2.build_opener(h)
...
This is a total shot in the dark, but are your VPSs 64-bit and your home computer 32-bit, or vice versa? Maybe a difference in default sizes or accuracies of something could be freaking out the server.
Barring that, can you try to find out any information on the software stack the web server is using?
I had similar issues with urllib2 (working with Zimbra's REST api), in the end switched to pycurl with success.
PS
for operations of login/navigate/post, I usually find Mechanize useful and easier to use. Maybe you can give it a show.
Well, it looks like I know why the problem was happening, but I'm not 100% the reason for it.
I simply had to make the server wait (time.sleep()) after it sent the 2nd request (Move to another page) before doing the 3rd request (Perform a POST by filling in a form).
I don't know is it because of a condition with the 3rd party server, or if it's some sort of odd issue with URLlib? The reason it seemed to work on my development machine is presumably because it was slower then the server at running the code?
I'm working on a Django 1.2.3 project, and I'm finding that the admin session seems to timeout extremely early, after about a minute after logging in, even while I'm using it.
Initially, I had these settings:
SESSION_COOKIE_AGE=1800
SESSION_EXPIRE_AT_BROWSER_CLOSE=True
I thought the problem might be my session storage was mis-configured, so I tried configuring my session to be stored in local memory by adding:
SESSION_ENGINE = "django.contrib.sessions.backends.cache"
CACHE_BACKEND = 'locmem://'
However, the problem still occurs. Is there something else that would cause admin sessions to timeout early even when the user is active?
Caching sessions in locmem:// means that you lose the session whenever the python process restarts. If you're running under the dev server, that would be any time you save a file. In a production environment, that will vary based on your infrastructure - mod_wsgi in apache, for example, will restart python after a certain number of requests (which is highly configurable). If you have multiple python processes configured, you'll lose your session whenever your request goes to a different process.
What's more, if you have multiple servers in a production environment, locmem:// will only refer to one server process.
In other words, don't use locmem:// for session storage.
I have noticed that my particular instance of Trac is not running quickly and has big lags. This is at the very onset of a project, so not much is in Trac (except for plugins and code loaded into SVN).
Setup Info: This is via a SELinux system hosted by WebFaction. It is behind Apache, and connections are over SSL. Currently the .htpasswd file is what I use to control access.
Are there any recommend ways to improve the performance of Trac?
It's hard to say without knowing more about your setup, but one easy win is to make sure that Trac is running in something like mod_python, which keeps the Python runtime in memory. Otherwise, every HTTP request will cause Python to run, import all the modules, and then finally handle the request. Using mod_python (or FastCGI, whichever you prefer) will eliminate that loading and skip straight to the good stuff.
Also, as your Trac database grows and you get more people using the site, you'll probably outgrow the default SQLite database. At that point, you should think about migrating the database to PostgreSQL or MySQL, because they'll be able to handle concurrent requests much faster.
We've had the best luck with FastCGI. Another critical factor was to only use https for authentication but use http for all other traffic -- I was really surprised how much that made a difference.
I have noticed that if
select disctinct name from wiki
takes more than 5 seconds (for example due to a million rows in this table - this is a true story (We had a script that filled it)), browsing wiki pages becomes very slow and takes over 2*t*n, where t is time of execution of the quoted query (>5s of course), and n is a number of tracwiki links present on the viewed page.
This is due to trac having a (hardcoded) 5s cache expire for this query. It is used by trac to tell what the colour should the link be. We re-hardcoded the value to 30s (We need that many pages, so every 30s someone has to wait 6-7s).
It may not be what caused Your problem, but it may be. Good luck on speeding up Your Trac instance.
Serving the chrome files statically with and expires-header could help too. See the end of this page.