lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about devfs)
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.101 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site