mirror of
				https://github.com/django/daphne.git
				synced 2025-10-31 07:47:25 +03:00 
			
		
		
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
		
			301 lines
		
	
	
		
			13 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			ReStructuredText
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			301 lines
		
	
	
		
			13 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			ReStructuredText
		
	
	
	
	
	
| Deploying
 | |
| =========
 | |
| 
 | |
| Deploying applications using channels requires a few more steps than a normal
 | |
| Django WSGI application, but you have a couple of options as to how to deploy
 | |
| it and how much of your traffic you wish to route through the channel layers.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Firstly, remember that it's an entirely optional part of Django.
 | |
| If you leave a project with the default settings (no ``CHANNEL_LAYERS``),
 | |
| it'll just run and work like a normal WSGI app.
 | |
| 
 | |
| When you want to enable channels in production, you need to do three things:
 | |
| 
 | |
| * Set up a channel backend
 | |
| * Run worker servers
 | |
| * Run interface servers
 | |
| 
 | |
| You can set things up in one of two ways; either route all traffic through
 | |
| a :ref:`HTTP/WebSocket interface server <asgi-alone>`, removing the need
 | |
| to run a WSGI server at all; or, just route WebSockets and long-poll
 | |
| HTTP connections to the interface server, and :ref:`leave other pages served
 | |
| by a standard WSGI server <wsgi-with-asgi>`.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Routing all traffic through the interface server lets you have WebSockets and
 | |
| long-polling coexist in the same URL tree with no configuration; if you split
 | |
| the traffic up, you'll need to configure a webserver or layer 7 loadbalancer
 | |
| in front of the two servers to route requests to the correct place based on
 | |
| path or domain. Both methods are covered below.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| Setting up a channel backend
 | |
| ----------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| The first step is to set up a channel backend. If you followed the
 | |
| :doc:`getting-started` guide, you will have ended up using the in-memory
 | |
| backend, which is useful for ``runserver``, but as it only works inside the
 | |
| same process, useless for actually running separate worker and interface
 | |
| servers.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Instead, take a look at the list of :doc:`backends`, and choose one that
 | |
| fits your requirements (additionally, you could use a third-party pluggable
 | |
| backend or write your own - that page also explains the interface and rules
 | |
| a backend has to follow).
 | |
| 
 | |
| Typically a channel backend will connect to one or more central servers that
 | |
| serve as the communication layer - for example, the Redis backend connects
 | |
| to a Redis server. All this goes into the ``CHANNEL_LAYERS`` setting;
 | |
| here's an example for a remote Redis server::
 | |
| 
 | |
|     CHANNEL_LAYERS = {
 | |
|         "default": {
 | |
|             "BACKEND": "asgi_redis.RedisChannelLayer",
 | |
|             "CONFIG": {
 | |
|                 "hosts": [("redis-server-name", 6379)],
 | |
|             },
 | |
|             "ROUTING": "my_project.routing.channel_routing",
 | |
|         },
 | |
|     }
 | |
| 
 | |
| To use the Redis backend you have to install it::
 | |
| 
 | |
|     pip install -U asgi_redis
 | |
| 
 | |
| Some backends, though, don't require an extra server, like the IPC backend,
 | |
| which works between processes on the same machine but not over the network
 | |
| (it's available in the ``asgi_ipc`` package)::
 | |
| 
 | |
|     CHANNEL_LAYERS = {
 | |
|         "default": {
 | |
|             "BACKEND": "asgi_ipc.IPCChannelLayer",
 | |
|             "ROUTING": "my_project.routing.channel_routing",
 | |
|             "CONFIG": {
 | |
|                 "prefix": "mysite",
 | |
|             },
 | |
|         },
 | |
|     }
 | |
| 
 | |
| Make sure the same settings file is used across all your workers and interface
 | |
| servers; without it, they won't be able to talk to each other and things
 | |
| will just fail to work.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| Run worker servers
 | |
| ------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| Because the work of running consumers is decoupled from the work of talking
 | |
| to HTTP, WebSocket and other client connections, you need to run a cluster
 | |
| of "worker servers" to do all the processing.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Each server is single-threaded, so it's recommended you run around one or two per
 | |
| core on each machine; it's safe to run as many concurrent workers on the same
 | |
| machine as you like, as they don't open any ports (all they do is talk to
 | |
| the channel backend).
 | |
| 
 | |
| To run a worker server, just run::
 | |
| 
 | |
|     python manage.py runworker
 | |
| 
 | |
| Make sure you run this inside an init system or a program like supervisord that
 | |
| can take care of restarting the process when it exits; the worker server has
 | |
| no retry-on-exit logic, though it will absorb tracebacks from inside consumers
 | |
| and forward them to stderr.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Make sure you keep an eye on how busy your workers are; if they get overloaded,
 | |
| requests will take longer and longer to return as the messages queue up
 | |
| (until the expiry or capacity limit is reached, at which point HTTP connections will
 | |
| start dropping).
 | |
| 
 | |
| In a more complex project, you won't want all your channels being served by the
 | |
| same workers, especially if you have long-running tasks (if you serve them from
 | |
| the same workers as HTTP requests, there's a chance long-running tasks could
 | |
| block up all the workers and delay responding to HTTP requests).
 | |
| 
 | |
| To manage this, it's possible to tell workers to either limit themselves to
 | |
| just certain channel names or ignore specific channels using the
 | |
| ``--only-channels`` and ``--exclude-channels`` options. Here's an example
 | |
| of configuring a worker to only serve HTTP and WebSocket requests::
 | |
| 
 | |
|     python manage.py runworker --only-channels=http.* --only-channels=websocket.*
 | |
| 
 | |
| Or telling a worker to ignore all messages on the "thumbnail" channel::
 | |
| 
 | |
|     python manage.py runworker --exclude-channels=thumbnail
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| Run interface servers
 | |
| ---------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| The final piece of the puzzle is the "interface servers", the processes that
 | |
| do the work of taking incoming requests and loading them into the channels
 | |
| system.
 | |
| 
 | |
| If you want to support WebSockets, long-poll HTTP requests and other Channels
 | |
| features, you'll need to run a native ASGI interface server, as the WSGI
 | |
| specification has no support for running these kinds of requests concurrently.
 | |
| We ship with an interface server that we recommend you use called
 | |
| `Daphne <http://github.com/django/daphne/>`_; it supports WebSockets,
 | |
| long-poll HTTP requests, HTTP/2 *(soon)* and performs quite well.
 | |
| 
 | |
| You can just keep running your Django code as a WSGI app if you like, behind
 | |
| something like uwsgi or gunicorn; this won't let you support WebSockets, though,
 | |
| so you'll need to run a separate interface server to terminate those connections
 | |
| and configure routing in front of your interface and WSGI servers to route
 | |
| requests appropriately.
 | |
| 
 | |
| If you use Daphne for all traffic, it auto-negotiates between HTTP and WebSocket,
 | |
| so there's no need to have your WebSockets on a separate port or path (and
 | |
| they'll be able to share cookies with your normal view code, which isn't
 | |
| possible if you separate by domain rather than path).
 | |
| 
 | |
| To run Daphne, it just needs to be supplied with a channel backend, in much
 | |
| the same way a WSGI server needs to be given an application.
 | |
| First, make sure your project has an ``asgi.py`` file that looks like this
 | |
| (it should live next to ``wsgi.py``)::
 | |
| 
 | |
|     import os
 | |
|     from channels.asgi import get_channel_layer
 | |
| 
 | |
|     os.environ.setdefault("DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE", "my_project.settings")
 | |
| 
 | |
|     channel_layer = get_channel_layer()
 | |
| 
 | |
| Then, you can run Daphne and supply the channel layer as the argument::
 | |
| 
 | |
|     daphne my_project.asgi:channel_layer
 | |
| 
 | |
| Like ``runworker``, you should place this inside an init system or something
 | |
| like supervisord to ensure it is re-run if it exits unexpectedly.
 | |
| 
 | |
| If you only run Daphne and no workers, all of your page requests will seem to
 | |
| hang forever; that's because Daphne doesn't have any worker servers to handle
 | |
| the request and it's waiting for one to appear (while ``runserver`` also uses
 | |
| Daphne, it launches worker threads along with it in the same process). In this
 | |
| scenario, it will eventually time out and give you a 503 error after 2 minutes;
 | |
| you can configure how long it waits with the ``--http-timeout`` command line
 | |
| argument.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| Deploying new versions of code
 | |
| ------------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| One of the benefits of decoupling the client connection handling from work
 | |
| processing is that it means you can run new code without dropping client
 | |
| connections; this is especially useful for WebSockets.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Just restart your workers when you have new code (by default, if you send
 | |
| them SIGTERM they'll cleanly exit and finish running any in-process
 | |
| consumers), and any queued messages or new connections will go to the new
 | |
| workers. As long as the new code is session-compatible, you can even do staged
 | |
| rollouts to make sure workers on new code aren't experiencing high error rates.
 | |
| 
 | |
| There's no need to restart the WSGI or WebSocket interface servers unless
 | |
| you've upgraded the interface server itself or changed the ``CHANNEL_LAYER``
 | |
| setting; none of your code is used by them, and all middleware and code that can
 | |
| customize requests is run on the consumers.
 | |
| 
 | |
| You can even use different Python versions for the interface servers and the
 | |
| workers; the ASGI protocol that channel layers communicate over
 | |
| is designed to be portable across all Python versions.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. _asgi-alone:
 | |
| 
 | |
| Running just ASGI
 | |
| -----------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| If you are just running Daphne to serve all traffic, then the configuration
 | |
| above is enough where you can just expose it to the Internet and it'll serve
 | |
| whatever kind of request comes in; for a small site, just the one Daphne
 | |
| instance and four or five workers is likely enough.
 | |
| 
 | |
| However, larger sites will need to deploy things at a slightly larger scale,
 | |
| and how you scale things up is different from WSGI; see :ref:`scaling-up`.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. _wsgi-with-asgi:
 | |
| 
 | |
| Running ASGI alongside WSGI
 | |
| ---------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| ASGI and its canonical interface server Daphne are both relatively new,
 | |
| and so you may not wish to run all your traffic through it yet (or you may
 | |
| be using specialized features of your existing WSGI server).
 | |
| 
 | |
| If that's the case, that's fine; you can run Daphne and a WSGI server alongside
 | |
| each other, and only have Daphne serve the requests you need it to (usually
 | |
| WebSocket and long-poll HTTP requests, as these do not fit into the WSGI model).
 | |
| 
 | |
| To do this, just set up your Daphne to serve as we discussed above, and then
 | |
| configure your load-balancer or front HTTP server process to dispatch requests
 | |
| to the correct server - based on either path, domain, or if
 | |
| you can, the Upgrade header.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Dispatching based on path or domain means you'll need to design your WebSocket
 | |
| URLs carefully so you can always tell how to route them at the load-balancer
 | |
| level; the ideal thing is to be able to look for the ``Upgrade: WebSocket``
 | |
| header and distinguish connections by this, but not all software supports this
 | |
| and it doesn't help route long-poll HTTP connections at all.
 | |
| 
 | |
| You could also invert this model, and have all connections go to Daphne by
 | |
| default and selectively route some back to the WSGI server, if you have
 | |
| particular URLs or domains you want to use that server on.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| Running on a PaaS
 | |
| -----------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| To run Django with channels enabled on a Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS), you will
 | |
| need to ensure that your PaaS allows you to run multiple processes at different
 | |
| scaling levels; one group will be running Daphne, as a pure Python application
 | |
| (not a WSGI application), and the other should be running ``runworker``.
 | |
| 
 | |
| The PaaS will also either have to provide either its own Redis service or
 | |
| a third process type that lets you run Redis yourself to use the cross-network
 | |
| channel backend; both interface and worker processes need to be able to see
 | |
| Redis, but not each other.
 | |
| 
 | |
| If you are only allowed one running process type, it's possible you could
 | |
| combine both interface server and worker into one process using threading
 | |
| and the in-memory backend; however, this is not recommended for production
 | |
| use as you cannot scale up past a single node without groups failing to work.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. _scaling-up:
 | |
| 
 | |
| Scaling Up
 | |
| ----------
 | |
| 
 | |
| Scaling up a deployment containing channels (and thus running ASGI) is a little
 | |
| different to scaling a WSGI deployment.
 | |
| 
 | |
| The fundamental difference is that the group mechanic requires all servers serving
 | |
| the same site to be able to see each other; if you separate the site up and run
 | |
| it in a few, large clusters, messages to groups will only deliver to WebSockets
 | |
| connected to the same cluster. For some site designs this will be fine, and if
 | |
| you think you can live with this and design around it (which means never
 | |
| designing anything around global notifications or events), this may be a good
 | |
| way to go.
 | |
| 
 | |
| For most projects, you'll need to run a single channel layer at scale in order
 | |
| to achieve proper group delivery. Different backends will scale up differently,
 | |
| but the Redis backend can use multiple Redis servers and spread the load
 | |
| across them using sharding based on consistent hashing.
 | |
| 
 | |
| The key to a channel layer knowing how to scale a channel's delivery is if it
 | |
| contains the ``!`` character or not, which signifies a single-reader channel.
 | |
| Single-reader channels are only ever connected to by a single process, and so
 | |
| in the Redis case are stored on a single, predictable shard. Other channels
 | |
| are assumed to have many workers trying to read them, and so messages for
 | |
| these can be evenly divided across all shards.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Django channels are still relatively new, and so it's likely that we don't yet
 | |
| know the full story about how to scale things up; we run large load tests to
 | |
| try and refine and improve large-project scaling, but it's no substitute for
 | |
| actual traffic. If you're running channels at scale, you're encouraged to
 | |
| send feedback to the Django team and work with us to hone the design and
 | |
| performance of the channel layer backends, or you're free to make your own;
 | |
| the ASGI specification is comprehensive and comes with a conformance test
 | |
| suite, which should aid in any modification of existing backends or development
 | |
| of new ones.
 |