JeffCroft.com

Blog entry // 12.22.2006 // 3:03 PM // 33 Comments

WebFaction: Painless Django Hosting

One of the most-cited issues with Django is the lack of inexpensive hosting providers who support it for those wanting to give it a shot. To be fair, it’s not a very accurate complaint. Django can be installed on most any host that is LAMP-ish and gives you shell access. But, the install process — while not hard — has a lot of steps and thus, a lot of failure points.

John Udell recently checked out Django and came away impressed, but lamented the lack of simple, one-click install-style hosting. Thankfully, WebFaction has come to the rescue with brilliantly-simple Django hosting that Just Works — and at near-Dreamhost-level prices, to boot.

I signed up for WebFaction about 11a.m. this morning and my account was ready to go by 2:15 (although they ask you to give them 24 hours, so this may not always be the case). During the sign-up process, I chose Django from a list of web app setups I wanted to use as my default. Without me doing anything else, the account came with Django installed and working.

WebFaction also has similarly-simple support for Rails, TurboGears, CherryPy, WordPress, WebDAV, Wikis, Trac, Subversion, and more. Although they specialize in agile development frameworks like Django, they still support more traditional static file serving, PHP, and CGI sites, as well. They offer both MySQL and PostgreSQL (which I prefer), so that’s nice — most inexpensive hosts only seem to offer MySQL. With their month-to-month payment option and 30-day money-back guarantee, this seems to me this could be a terrific way for folks to try out several of these new-fangled frameworks and tools and see what works for them.

I’ve only just signed up and certainly haven’t done anything too significant with WebFaction’s service. For that reason, please don’t consider this a full review or recommendation from me. I may find out that their performance and support sucks — who knows. But WebFaction’s shared hosting starts at $7.50/month with no setup fees, and at that price, it’s certainly feel worth a shot, anyway — especially if you just want to play with Django, Rails, or similar.

Happy Holidays, all.

Comments

  1. 001 // David Sissitka // 12.22.2006 // 5:18 PM

    They also offer SQLite but you’ll have to fire up a terminal to use it. From a designer’s point of view what do you think about the control panel?

  2. 002 // Daniel // 12.22.2006 // 5:45 PM

    I’ve heard good things about Webfaction, but I’ve been cautious due to the lack of reviews to be found online. Maybe it’s time I gave them a shot.

  3. 003 // John Gardner // 12.22.2006 // 6:58 PM

    I’ve been using Webfaction with Django and Postgres for a few months and I only have good things to say about them. Not only is it easy to setup and access (via SSH or FTP) your site, but they are quite responsive to their user community (which makes a big difference). They’re definitely worth looking at.

  4. 004 // Peppe // 12.23.2006 // 10:21 AM

    This news is really a great Christmas present. I’m reading the Django Book and I can’t wait to try out Django in a real world environment.

    I’ve just downloaded the Django screencast and the install process seems so fast and smooth that I wonder why other web hosts are so slow to support Django, modpython and PostgreSQL.

    I have a question for Jeff regarding the current setup of this site. I suppose you’re using modpython on Gypsy Hosting: what is the total RAM used by long-running processes? In other words: what WebFaction shared plan could support JeffCroft.com?

  5. 005 // Ali // 12.23.2006 // 10:22 PM

    Hi, one quick question: how do you serve static files (css, images, javscript) using web faction ?

    Merry Christmas.

  6. 006 // Jeff Croft // 12.23.2006 // 11:12 PM

    Well, I spent a couple hours tonight playing with WebFaction. I created an SVN repository (with Trac access) and moved all my code there. This website (which isn’t on WebFaction — at least not yet) is now a checkout from that repository.

    With everything in SVN, it was easy to also do a checkout on WebFaction to test out my site running there. I had almost no problems getting a copy of my site working over on WebFaction. The hardest part was duplicating my database over there, but even that wasn’t too tough (since they have PostgreSQL, which I use here on Gypsy Hosting).

    I’m still not sure if I’ll move jeffcroft.com over there or not. WebFaction seems quite good, and I now feel pretty comfortable recommending them — but I haven’t had any problem with Gyspy Hosting, either, so I don’t have any great reason to switch.

    All in all, though, I’m quite impressed.

  7. 007 // Jeff Croft // 12.23.2006 // 11:14 PM

    I’ll try to answer some of your questions…

    They also offer SQLite but you’ll have to fire up a terminal to use it.

    I didn’t realize this, but that’s handy. SQLite is terrific for development. I run it on my Mac.

    From a designer’s point of view what do you think about the control panel?

    Meh. It’s definitely not great, but it’s not terrible either. It’s marginally better than Dreamhost’s, which isn’t saying a lot. All-in-all, there are a lot of improvements that could be made, but it gets the job done. I’m not complaining.

    they are quite responsive to their user community (which makes a big difference).

    Indeed. Although I don’t have first hand experience, it does seem like (from the forums and blog) they’re very in touch with their community and responsive to their needs.

    I wonder why other web hosts are so slow to support Django, modpython and PostgreSQL.

    I think mod_python is the kicker. I’m no sysadmin, but I bet that’s the thing they’re most hesitant to deal with. You’ll notice most hosts — even those that support Rails — don’t do mod_ruby, either. And, many (such as Dreamhost) don’t really like to do mod_php, preferring to have is handled by CGI/FastCGI.

    Like I said in the blog post, Django works fine on almost all hosts, really. Most *NIX systems have Python readily available, and that’s really all you need. With a little work, you can get Django running under FastCGI with MySQL.

    But still, WebFaction’s one-click type install — and it’s support of the environment Django is really happiest in (mod_python, PostgreSQL) — is a really big plus.

  8. 008 // Jeff Croft // 12.23.2006 // 11:14 PM

    I suppose you’re using modpython on Gypsy Hosting…

    Yep. I use mod_python here at jeffcroft.com, and some of my other sites use FastCGI on Dreamhost.

    What is the total RAM used by long-running processes? In other words: what WebFaction shared plan could support JeffCroft.com?

    It’s tough to tell, really. I was trying to figure that out myself. From what I can tell, it seems like I’m using about 25MB RAM with long-running processes. I’d also have to add in SVN and Trac, though, since I’d want to run those. Assuming those are around 10MB each (which is what it looks like), I think Shared 2 (which is the one I signed up for) could probably handle it. If I decide to move my site over, I’ll probably upgrade to Shared 3 or 4, because I would also move lost-theories.com over and I’d just want to be safe.

    Hi, one quick question: how do you serve static files (css, images, javscript) using web faction ?

    It’s very easy. The way the WebFaction control panel works like this:

    1. You set up your domain/subdomain names.
    2. You install “web apps”, like Django, Rails, SVN, Trac, etc.
    3. You configure those web apps to respond to certain URLs.

    You can install as many web apps as you need, from what I can tell. One of the apps is “static/php.” You just install the “static/php” app and configure it at a particular URL (like media.jeffcroft.com or static.jeffcroft.com). From what I can tell, the “static” app is just a simple apache install with mod_python. So, it can be used for both static files (images, js, css, etc.) and PHP scripts/apps.

    In closing, I’ll say again that I’m pretty impressed. If you want to try out Django, Rails, or other frameworks, I’d say WebFaction is probably your best bet. Gypsy Hosting, where this site is hosted from now, is also great — but I believe Jacob has stopped accepting new customers — at least for the time being, as he doesn’t want to overload his hardware.

  9. 009 // Fredrik // 12.24.2006 // 3:58 AM

    “I’d also have to add in SVN and Trac”

    SVN and Trac don’t count as long-running programs; they both behave like ordinary CGI scripts from the server’s perspective (Trac is a CGI script, SVN is a apache plugin (mod_dav_svn)). They both count as applications, though.

  10. 010 // Jeff Croft // 12.24.2006 // 9:57 AM

    Thanks for the clarification, Fredrik! :)

  11. 011 // Peppe // 12.24.2006 // 3:13 PM

    Thanks for your replies.

    Someday you should write a post about the development process behind JeffCroft.com: TRAC, SVN, trunk, branches, local copies, etc.

    I think we could learn a lot from your development practices…

  12. 012 // James Bennett // 12.24.2006 // 10:31 PM

    Yeah, their one-click support is pretty darned good from what I’ve seen.

    Though I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that one of my fellow TextDrive hostees took the long-winded instructions I wrote up way back when, updated them for post-magic-removal Django and created a ‘django-install.py’ script which does almost all the heavy lifting for installing/configuring flup, lighttpd, etc. (details are here).

    Where somebody wants to host is up to them, of course, but it’s nice to know that there are increasing numbers of easy options for Django :)

  13. 013 // Jeff Croft // 12.28.2006 // 4:55 PM

    If you’re seeing this comment, it means you’re seeing jeffcroft.com on WebFaction. I’ve moved my site. :) DNS is still propagating, so some people are still seeing jeffcroft.com on Gypsy Hosting. You’re lucky enough to be seeing the WebFaction-powered site early.

    A couple more notes on WebFaction:

    • By default, WebFaction sets you up with Django .95 (although .91 is available, too, for the non-magic-removal folks in the house). That makes sense, since .95 is the latest official release of Django. But, many Djangoers (myself included) prefer to live on the bleeding edge by using the latest checkout from the Django subversion repository, rather than version .95. I was able to checkout the trunk branch of Django and switch to it from .95 with no pain at all. I just renamed the django module WebFaction sets up to django_v95, and then checked out the trunk version, calling it django_trunk. Then, I symlinked django_trunk to django. Worked flawlessly.
    • I’ve been really impressed with WebFaction support. I screwed up my database setup once (by not following directions) and they actually contacted me, saying they’d seen the errors in their logs and wondered if I wanted them to fix it for me. Nice. I also upgraded to a higher account (I’ll be serving several sites off this account, so I think I needed it), and they got that done very quickly.
    • I’ve had lost-theories.com moved over for 24 hours now, and performance seems really good. That site doesn’t get as much traffic as jeffcroft.com, but it’s still as much or more than the typical blog/personal site. I’ll let you all know how it holds up to jeffcroft.com after a few days.
    • Memory usage is something I’ve never really had to pay much attention to before, since I’ve never been on a host that limits it. So, I wasn’t really sure what to expect as far as that goes. Turns out, each apache instance for lost-theories.com takes up about 15MB of RAM (Resident Set Size, in Unix terms). Since you have full control over your apache configuration on WebFaction, you can set the number of running instances to your liking. The default is two. So, I have two apache instances for lost-theories.com at 18MB each — or about 30MB. I could lower it to one instance — and I may try that. I’m not sure what would happen. :) The jeffcroft.com apache processes are about 19MB each. I don’t know if this will change when more people start seeing the WebFaction-powered version.
    • Another gotcha on memory usage: Django/apache instances memory usage will constantly escate — and very quickly — if you have DEBUG set to True in settings.py. This is because Django saves all SQL queries in memory when it DEBUG mode. So, be sure to turn DEBUG off when your site goes live, or you’ll definitely go over your memory limit (and yes, I speak from experience).
    • There is no local mail server running on the web boxes your Django will run on at WebFaction. Django’s default setting for EMAIL_HOST is localhost. This means Django will be unable to send e-mails unless you override the default mail server settings in settings.py. The specific variables you’ll need to address are EMAIL_HOST, EMAIL_HOST_USER, and EMAIL_HOST_PASSWORD.
    • You don’t need a separate apache and django for every site you want to run. You can create VirtHosts in your httpd.conf to deal with multiple sites. Whether you actually want to do this is another question. For me, I wanted LOST-theories.com and jeffcroft.com to be on separate instances, so I could stop/restart them separately, monitor their memory usage separately, etc. But, it’s up to you.

    That’s all for now! Overall, it’s working great. Very pleased with WebFaction so far.

  14. 014 // Markus // 12.29.2006 // 4:40 AM

    Congrats! I’m seeing JeffCroft.com on WebFaction (I’m from Italy). Thanks for your precious tips. Only a question: the footer says “Hosted by Dreamhost and WebFaction”. What do you have on DreamHost?

  15. 015 // Jeff Croft // 12.29.2006 // 9:43 AM

    @Markus: I just have larger static files and e-mail on Dreamhost. They offer a lot more disk space than just about anyone, so it’s good for that. I keep over 40GB of e-mail in my IMAP accounts (I’m an e-mail packrat — I’ve got mail dating back to 1996 still saved!).

    All the Django stuff is happening at WebFaction — Dreamhost is just an extra online hard drive, for me. :)

  16. 016 // David Sissitka // 12.29.2006 // 8:31 PM

    Welcome aboard. :)

  17. 017 // Peppe // 12.31.2006 // 3 AM

    Jeff > …I created an SVN repository (with Trac access)…

    As a web designer turned developer I’ve just discovered the power of Subversion.

    I’m currently using only the trunk with a few tags to mark important revisions. Do you use branches also?

    As for TRAC, I’m not part of a team so I don’t consider it really necessary: it’s only an easy way to browse the depository via a web browser.

    Being on Windows I use TortoiseSVN as Subversion client and it’s terrific. I wonder if Mac users have a similar GUI tool or are forced to use a shell to interact with the repository.

  18. 018 // Jeff Croft // 12.31.2006 // 11:15 AM

    I’m currently using only the trunk with a few tags to mark important revisions. Do you use branches also

    I haven’t created any branches yet, but I’m sure I will in the future. I think they will be handy when I go to redesign or refactor a lot of code.

    As for TRAC, I’m not part of a team so I don’t consider it really necessary: it’s only an easy way to browse the depository via a web browser.

    Yeah, it may not be necessary if you’re not on a team. I find it handy to have that easy view of my code from anywhere, and I do occasionally let trusted people have access to some or all of my code, so this will be a nice way to give them that access.

    I wonder if Mac users have a similar GUI tool or are forced to use a shell to interact with the repository.

    There are several Mac GUI SVN clients out there, but for my money, nothing beats the built-in SVN support that TextMate has. CTRL-CMD-A at anytime, and bam, you’ve got the full menu of SVN capabilities at your disposal. Love it.

  19. 019 // Baxter // 01.02.2007 // 12:20 PM

    Well, I’m a little late to this… as you already know, I switched from DH to webfaction a few weeks ago, and have been really happy. It’s switching from a host that grudgingly kinda sorta supports Django to one that’s quite happy to host a django site. So far I’ve noticed several of the gotchas mentioned above (gotta remember to turn off Debug!!!) and haven’t had any real problems to speak of.

  20. 020 // web faction user // 01.08.2007 // 9:21 PM

    If youre into configuring Apache, digging through poorly maintained forums, and trying to figure out cryptic error messages then by all means WebFaction is for you. By painless theyre speaking relative to being burned at the stake.

    I set up Django and mod_python on VMWare in an evening. It was my forst install of Django ever. Two months later I sign up for web faction. Their webcast is broken: Quicktime error “bad public movie atom”. Their documentation is so poor that users have to rely on each other to get things runing. Sorry when I buy hosting I’m expecting some level of paid for technical support. True, I filed a ticket but they told me to look at the form, I did, no results.

    So overall my impression, stay away from WebFaction if you dont want a head ache. I get the impression its a bunch of guys in their living room runing around in their PJs. I’m sure once I figure it out it will be easy and simple. Until then I curse Web Faction every moment of my pain…

  21. 021 // Jeff Croft // 01.08.2007 // 11:57 PM

    @web faction user:

    Thanks for sharing your experience. It certainly doesn’t mimic the one I’ve had in my first few weeks with WebFaction, but it’s always good to hear both sides of the story.

    For the record, having full access to Apache’shttpd.conf is one of my favorite things about WebFaction.

  22. 022 // David Sissitka // 01.10.2007 // 10:55 PM

    Anonymous WebFaction User: I just double checked all of the screencasts posted to the WebFaction blog and they are working as expected. HTTP nor streaming QuickTime is perfect but your best bet would be to try again. If the screencast still doesn’t work for you I’ve gone over the steps required to deploy a Django application here. I don’t believe that Remi would have told you to check the forum even if the problem was common. Anyways, if you’re still having issues create a thread and I’ll see what I can do. :)

  23. 023 // gravesit // 01.24.2007 // 10:04 AM

    Noticed lately that you have had some down time with proxy errors? Regretting switching?

  24. 024 // Joe W. // 02.04.2007 // 2:25 PM

    I just switched from Dreamhost to Web Faction for my Django-based wedding site. Setting up the application was simple and it’s uptime is way better than Dreamhost for Django apps. Using FCGI for Django also just felt kind of hackish, there were more moving parts and places for things to go wrong. mod_python is a much simpler and faster setup. And I agree, access to your own http.conf file is very nice.

  25. 025 // Jeff Triplett // 02.12.2007 // 6:23 PM

    I use a virtual server (VPS) for the bulk of my Django hosting and I prefer Dreamhost for my media + database. Let’s face it, for the price they’re hard to beat. The virtual server route is not for everyone and I can see where I may need to use a company like WebFaction for any sites that outgrow my current server resources but that aren’t quite ready for a dedicated server or the hassle of another VPS.

    I’ve noticed your lost theories site has had quite a few proxy errors as of late so I hope WebFaction addresses the problem sooner then later. I’m glad to see a company like them support Django and I look forward to more hosting services doing the same.

  26. 026 // Chris Tinglin // 02.27.2007 // 3:56 PM

    Good to see the number of Django-friendly hosts increasing. Does anyone have any words of warning or encouragement about djangodomain.com?

  27. 027 // Ben Spaulding // 03.28.2007 // 2:32 PM

    Thanks for recommending WebFaction — they are a great place to learn apps like Django. I had never used anything like Django, but with their one click install I was able to go in and look around at how it is all set up and play around a bit.

    I only used them for a month because I am a poor, married college student and can’t be paying for two hosting services. But with the WebFaction intro, I have now set up Django on DreamHost (thanks to your earlier tutorial).

  28. 028 // Rohan // 04.25.2007 // 3:56 PM

    This message is just to add to the record that getting Django working with WebFaction is really very simple once you understand some basic things.

    Personaly, I hardly know anything about Linux and managed to get my windows django application working on Webfaction without any help. To help complete novices like myself, I created a Webfaction forum entry:

    http://forum.webfaction.com/view…

    The Webfaction support has been very good so far (only a few days in)

  29. 029 // Arik Jones // 08.03.2007 // 4:46 PM

    I just switched from Dreamhost to Webfaction and I am mighty pleased! They take the cruft out of deploying web applications fueled rails, django etc. Lets face it, Dreamhost is talk and no walk.

  30. 030 // Julien // 11.24.2007 // 3:31 AM

    Hi Jeff,

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts on WF! I currently have a Dreamhost account, but the lack of reliability for hosting Django sites (I’ve had headaches trying to make it work, despite your excellent tutorial) pushes me to look for other solutions. WF seems to be the way to go.

    However, the site I am building needs to manage gigabytes of static data (videos and music). Do you know if it is possible to have the Django application running on WF and keep all the static data on DH? Can we do that with only one domain name (and possibly several subdomains if necessary)?

    Your advice is greatly appreciated ;)

  31. 031 // Hugh // 02.19.2008 // 8:12 PM

    I’ve made the switch from DH to Webfaction and I really enjoy them. Deploying is a breeze. For anyone interested, I made a Django hosting list

  32. 032 // Dorian Grey // 06.24.2008 // 12:55 PM

    http://bells-n-whistles.net/ is better

  33. 033 // Django Enthusiast // 12.21.2009 // 8:21 AM

    I am paying only $5.50 per month for hosting with http://www.webfaction.com/signup…

    I tried couple other hosting companies but this was the best

Tags for this entry
Links in this entry