Problem with bookmarks in version 2.5

[Angel Ezquerra]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Kevin Bullock
<kbullock+mercurial at ringworld.org> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
>
>> On 02/06/2013 06:35 PM, Angel Ezquerra wrote:
>>> If you are using Apache on windows I would actually recommend against migrating to WSGI. In my experience the multi-user performance is much worse than when using CGI.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on that?
>>
>> Without further evidence I would assume that it was a WSGI misconfiguration and that no conclusion should be made from that experience.
>
> I'm curious as well, given the number of different moving parts that can go into a WSGI deployment (Apache, lighttpd, nginx, IIS? mod_wsgi, gunicorn, ...? etc.)
>
> pacem in terris / мир / शान्ति / ‎‫سَلاَم‬ / 平和
> Kevin R. Bullock
>

I started a lenghty thread about this last year:

http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2012-July/043539.html

The performance when multiple users were trying to access our
Apache+WSGI windows server simultaneously was very bad. In particular
all access to the web interface would stall when a user was doing a
large pull or push operation.

It is hard to tell where our performance problems came from, since
there were/are so many moving parts (windows, apache, mod_wsgi,
mercurial, our particular network configuration, etc). It could well
be due to a wsgi or Apache misconfiguration. That being said one of
the main suggestions was to try to use CGI rather than WSGI. We tried
it and the result was that the performance improved dramatically. The
"stalls" were basically eliminated when we moved to CGI.

Now this is just a single data point, and the our performance issues
with WSGI could be due to our specific setup. However this proves that
under certain conditions WSGI may perform worse than CGI on Windows.
IMHO this means that we should not do a blanket recommendation of WSGI
over CGI on Windows without further proof that it really offers better
performance in most cases.

Cheers,

Angel