![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> tux is more advanced than khttpd. It's also more intrusive to the kernel as > far as core changes are concerned. These changes allow for higher > performance, but you'll only notice that if you want to fill a gigabit line > or more..... Are there any good reasons why to run khttpd, then? What I need is a server serving something between 50 and 500 concurrent clients - each downloading at 4-8Mbps. Which one would be best? Anyone have an idea? thanks roy --- Computers are like air conditioners. They stop working when you open Windows. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12 [W:0.177 / U:0.030 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||