Re: khttpd

Jordan Mendelson (jordy@wserv.com)
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:09:31 -0400


Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Jordan Mendelson wrote:
>
> > By default, Squid blocks everything but 80, 21, 443, 563, 70, 210 and
> > 1025-65535... but then again, by default squid blocks connections from all hosts
> > to force you to change the configuration defaults :)
>
> squid blocks? Never seen squid do that here.

Beginning with Squid 2.STABLE, the default squid configuration file denys access
to all connections, except I believe the Redhat distribution which accepts from
localhost.

> > Actually, Squid can be used to automatically rewrite URL's to forward to khttpd
> > for connections quite easily when using Squid as a web accelerator.
>
> Which gives rise to the question why use khttp at all. The point was to
> avoid user mode completely.

Yeah, it was just an observation of Squid's abilities. Squid itself was created
to serve out static pages from it's cache, but this leads to another question..

Why create a specific server in kernel mode designed to serve out static files
to a TCP socket when so many things other than web servers would improve from
this? FTP servers, News servers, Mail servers, etc would all benefit from an
increase in speed.

Wouldn't it be better to generalize khttpd into a series of syscalls userland
servers can use to dish out static files at maximum speed and efficiency?

Jordan

--
Jordan Mendelson     : http://jordy.wserv.com
Web Services, Inc.   : http://www.wserv.com

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/