I don't have doubts about Django scaling.
The caching framework is really cool. I did a test a couple of weeks ago, and I got a 10x performance boost, simply by sprinkling 3-4 lines of caching code to my site. That was justing the local memory caching: http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.0/topics/cache/#local-mem...
I'd imagine that using a caching back end like memcache would probably give another huge performance boost. It's really pretty straight-forward and usable out of the box.
Signed, the guy who introduced Django to washingtonpost.com
I'm not disagreeing that scaling isn't only caching, but it's often a component just like anything else. Caching often helps scaling, as do multiple databases, working out bottlenecks in code...whatever else.
Caching is not scaling because by definition, it depends on a backend to provide it data.
If the backend is a database then sure, you can increase capacity by ~10x (assuming a ~90% cache hit rate), but after that, throwing more caching nodes at the problem won't do a thing if your database itself isn't scalable.
All a cache does is increase speed at decreased costs, but it is not in itself a scaling solution.
Are there any issues in particular you're concerned about?
For example, did you modify the source to support multiple databases for read/write? Or is that not an issue and it's OK that it's coming later in the framework's roadmap?
Discussing this before starting a startup sort of feels like trying to figure out how to do salary for hundreds of employees before getting your first one.
* squid reverse proxies
* memcached
* low memory footprint httpd serving static content (e.g. nginx / lighttpd etc.)Thanks for the resource. This will come in handy.