Does we really need nginx+uwsgi?

[item4]

I find new solution, Caddy from HN.

I suggest use it to our service

[tkiapril]

I played around with Caddy a bit with Docker, but found it a little immature being a production server yet. I felt a bit uncomfortable setting virtual hosts and fallback, and also its' rewrite engine does not seem to support patterns yet, assuming from the docs. I do know that we do not need all of these features, but wouldn't it better to take some term watching it to mature sufficiently and then decide whether to move on or not?

[tkiapril]

Btw, using nginx with uwsgi was a matter of stabillity and performance. Thought it'll do the job for us.

[dahlia]

Features Caddy introduced don’t seem actually necessary for us. It could be good, but not that needed.

[item4]

What I want to say is, we have some trouble about deploy and real running service. So I think if uwsgi is too difficult to debug, we can try other way like gunicorn + something.

[dahlia]

Could you show some examples of these some troubles?

[item4]

Now I can't show you because service is down. when service is up. our source is deployed and not worked. (5xx error) and not sent error to sentry.

[miaekim]

@item4 I think there will be another problem or its problem of sentry.

[dahlia]

If the server shows 500 Server Error it means Nginx is alive but its upstream behind, which is our application server, does not respond. It won’t be solved by replacing Nginx with its alternative.