Python does not play well with others

[sjdevnull at yahoo.com]

John Nagle wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 1:05 pm, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>"Paul Boddie" <p... at boddie.org.uk> writes:
> >>
> >>>Probably the biggest inhibitor, as far as I can see, has been the
> >>>server technology chosen. Many hosting providers have historically
> >>>offered no better than CGI for Python, whilst PHP runs within Apache
> >>>itself, and it has previously been stated that mod_python has been
> >>>undesirable with regard to isolating processes from each other.
> >>>Consequently, a number of Python people seem to have held out for
> >>>other "high performance" solutions, which various companies now offer.
> >>
> >>Your point that shared hosting with Python isn't so easy because of
> >>insufficient isolation between apps is valid.  Maybe Python 3.0 can do
> >>something about that and it seems like a valid thing to consider while
> >>fleshing out the 3.0 design.
> >
> >
> > To clarify some points about mod_python, since these posts do not
> > properly explain the reality of the situation and I feel people are
> > getting the wrong impression.
> >
> > First off, when using mod_python it is possible to have it create
> > multiple sub interpreters within each Apache child process.
>
>      Realistically, mod_python is a dead end for large servers,
> because Python isn't really multi-threaded.  The Global Python
> Lock means that a multi-core CPU won't help performance.

The GIL doesn't affect seperate processes, and any large server that
cares about stability is going to be running a pre-forking MPM no
matter what language they're supporting.