> > > > BTW: the big issue with khttpd is a lack of genericness. Its a
> > > > single problem single solution piece of code. There are lots and
> >
> > Any examples? All other protocols except NFS (that is already in kernel)
>
> ftp, even finger,
High latency, request per connection design -- not exactly a thing
where performance improvements from async sendfile will be noticeable.
> mp3 streaming
Isn't it done over HTTP already?
>. It also should scale better than a
> khttpd would because it removes the killer thread/request problem.
Those two things are rather unrelated -- caching mechanism, based on
"better khttpd" can use the same thing inside the kernel if it will be
implemented in a generic way.
And IMHO the problem with the number of threads/processed necessary for
the implementation (that still can be managed efficiently) seems to be
so significant now because existing HTTP servers in all their forms
have large memory footprint thus causing unnecessary paging when the
number of requests increases.
-- Alex---------------------------------------------------------------------- Excellent.. now give users the option to cut your hair you hippie! -- Anonymous Coward
- 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/