On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 02:36:41PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > This just goes on to show that khttpd is unnecessary kernel bloat and can be
> > "just as well" handled by a userspace application, minus some rather very
> > special cases which do not justify its inclusion into the main
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> On 2001-01-11T22:20:56,
>Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Then we decided to switch persistant connection off... But boa still wins.
>>
>> What is wrong here? I would expect transferates of a 3-4 megabytes over a
>> localhost
> > TUX is evidence that khttpd can be done properly and
> > beat the pants off of anything done in userspace.
> >
>
> Then why don't we unload khttpd and put in Tux?
Tux needs the zero copy patches I believe so zero copy has to precede it
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Lars Marowsky-Bree writes:
> > This just goes on to show that khttpd is unnecessary kernel bloat
> > and can be "just as well" handled by a userspace application, minus
> >
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:"David S. Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
Lars Marowsky-Bree writes:
This just goes on to show that khttpd is unnecessary kernel bloat
and can be "just as well" handled by a userspace application, minus
some rather
TUX is evidence that khttpd can be done properly and
beat the pants off of anything done in userspace.
Then why don't we unload khttpd and put in Tux?
Tux needs the zero copy patches I believe so zero copy has to precede it
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
On 2001-01-11T22:20:56,
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Then we decided to switch persistant connection off... But boa still wins.
What is wrong here? I would expect transferates of a 3-4 megabytes over a
localhost interface. The file
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 02:36:41PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
This just goes on to show that khttpd is unnecessary kernel bloat and can be
"just as well" handled by a userspace application, minus some rather very
special cases which do not justify its inclusion into the main kernel.
Lars Marowsky-Bree writes:
> This just goes on to show that khttpd is unnecessary kernel bloat
> and can be "just as well" handled by a userspace application, minus
> some rather very special cases which do not justify its inclusion
> into the main kernel.
My take on this is that khttpd is
On 2001-01-11T22:20:56,
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Then we decided to switch persistant connection off... But boa still wins.
>
> What is wrong here? I would expect transferates of a 3-4 megabytes over a
> localhost interface. The file is certainly in some kind of cache.
I got into a bragging game whose webserver is the fastest with Jim Nelson
one of the authors of the boa webserver. We finally settled on the Zeus
test to decide the battle.
First boa won hands down because it supports persistant connections. Boa
on port 6000. Khttpd on port 80:
On 2001-01-11T22:20:56,
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Then we decided to switch persistant connection off... But boa still wins.
What is wrong here? I would expect transferates of a 3-4 megabytes over a
localhost interface. The file is certainly in some kind of cache.
This
12 matches
Mail list logo
