<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Mar 18, 2011, at 9:35 PM, <a href="mailto:exarkun@twistedmatrix.com">exarkun@twistedmatrix.com</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: 'Bitstream Vera Sans Mono'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: monospace; ">A multi-process WSGI container might actually be of practical use, since<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>it may make more cores available to your server. If an application is<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>bottlenecked on CPU rather than some high-latency operation (as you can<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>only process as many concurrent requests as you have threads in your<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>threadpool), more cores can help.<br></span></span></blockquote></div><br><div>+1. This will actually speed up your application code, not just the server :).</div><div><br></div></body></html>