Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about devfs) | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:21:02 +0200 |
| |
In article <Pine.LNX.4.02A.9906180443400.2836-100000@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us> you wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Existing khttpd code isn't the best implementation on the idea, it's > neither optimized nor particularily well designed.
True. very true.
> Similar by basic > operation thing that works as a cache and does clean fallback to the > userspace server (khttpd fallback mechanism is primitive and inefficient),
Have you seen version 0.1.2pre5? It provides a MUCH better fallback mechanism.
>> > Apache 2.0 should be. > will cause the performance to be increased so dramatically. So far all > changes still involve heavy modifications in kernel that are as little > portable between systems as in-kernel HTTP caching support.
kHTTPd itself isn't portable of course. BUT it requires NO changes to Apache and virtually no changes to the existing kernel (other than to export a couple of symbols).
Greetings, Arjan van de Ven
- 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/
| |