12 engineers on Hacker News describe using uWSGI first-hand: 3 endorse it, 2 regret it, 0 are mixed.
“The way we run the scripts is with uwsgi and its cgi plugin. I find it simpler and more flexible than running apache”
endorse · production · gvalkov · 2025-07-06 · source ↗ · wrong label?“Running asyncio-based servers on uwsgi is very stable though”
endorse · production · dom0 · 2016-10-15 · source ↗ · wrong label?“I can be sure that the larger server will handle more concurrent requests than process-restricted uwsgi, and thus be able to better allocate the resources”
regret · production · themartorana · 2016-06-13 · source ↗ · wrong label?“uWSGI was speaking HTTP and translating to WSGI, but did so only in one thread/process.”
regret · production · CoffeeDregs · 2015-10-22 · source ↗ · wrong label?“in my experience (2 years with gunicorn, 1 with uwsgi in prod), uwsgi is more stable, uses less memory, has better management and configuration tools”
endorse · production · 1 yr · rlander · 2012-05-16 · source ↗ · wrong label?“I've written some blog posts about advance uwsgi configurations that we use in production systems like Crowdcrafting.org”
neutral · production · teleyinex · 2015-07-02 · source ↗ · wrong label?“For the website though we run uWSGIs in forked mode, so it's only one container per host.”
neutral · production · boffbowsh · 2014-12-08 · source ↗ · wrong label?“it's based on Django under uWSGI”
neutral · production · tomkinstinch · 2014-05-16 · source ↗ · wrong label?“When we run servers, it's usually Flask and Nginx/uWSGI.”
neutral · production · jeremyjbowers · 2013-02-25 · source ↗ · wrong label?“Our realtime app, for example, is powered off of uwsgi and Flask.”
neutral · production · zeeg · 2012-11-22 · source ↗ · wrong label?“I have some apps deployed with nginx > uwsgi > django”
neutral · production · Codayus · 2011-11-23 · source ↗ · wrong label?