Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about

Alex Belits (abelits@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us)
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:22:56 -0700 (PDT)


On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Alan Cox wrote:

> > 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.
>
> So you want to solve the "its big" problem with "its big but I stuffed it
> in the kernel" ?

Definitely not. I want to reduce the number of requests that reach the
bloated thing in userspace by using small in-kernel cache server.

> Apache doesnt use CLONE and VM sharing. That is an apache problem.

This can improve performance at the price of making
non-file-sending modules more complicated (the whole different can of
worms here for Apache and others). Still the performance won't be
as high as with cache, and kernel change doesn't prevent servers to do
their own improvements, things seem to be pretty ortogonal here.

-- 
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/