Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Dec 1999 19:33:14 -0500 (EST) | From | Mark Hahn <> | Subject | Re: Bloat? (khttpd) |
| |
> kHTTPd (and any webserver, and in a way NFS/FTP server) is two things > 1) A Request-decoder/Startup (header) part > 2) Bulk data transfer ... > way, and is in the 2.2 kernels since ages). For #2, it makes no sence to > switch to userspace a lot, as userspace effectively would only increment > some counter.
this is a policy decision, and thus wrong. real webservers want to log hits, even on static pages. this, and the fact that most real webservers are dominated by non-static pages, is why khttpd shouldn't be in the kernel: it's a benchmark special, embarassingly so. our friends in Redmond will certainly not refrain from pointing out that the only way Linux can compete is by violating our own abstractions.
> The discussion about "bloat" cannot be over the filesize of the > kernel-tarbal, as this overhead is minimal. It also cannot be "Everything > that can be done in userspace, should be banned from the kernel". Even the > TCP/IP stack and the VFS would have to be banned.
this is disingenuous: the criterion is whether something can only be appropriately done in kernel space. so for instance, net protocols would presumably be too inefficient if in user-space. AFAIR, the old user-space nfsd simply could not implement certain operations correctly.
so far, we have no reason to believe that khttpd performs better than, say, phhttbd, even on silly static-only benchmarks. and even if it did, the sensible conclusion would be that there's something wrong with Linux, not that webserving should be in the kernel!
regards, mark hahn.
- 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/
| |