Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jun 1999 20:33:09 -0400 | From | "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <> | Subject | Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about |
| |
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 00:05:44 +0100 (BST) From: Simon Kenyon <simon@koala.ie>
i thought khttpd was an existance proof and nothing more shouldn't the debate be about of if, now how?
I believe what khttpd will be great at is a benchmark target. If a userspace httpd can beat khttpd's numbers, then we know we're on the right track. Stephen Tweedie was telling me at Usenix about some of the good work which Zach Brown has been working on. Basically, it uses the POSIX real-time signals plus O_ASYNC to completely eliminate the thundering herd problem as well as the need to use poll() or select() and the overhead engendered by those functions. I think it's a very promising approach, that may very well be just as fast as khttpd while still giving all of the flexibility that user-space httpd can offer.
The name of the game here is to be able to smoke Microsoft on its benchmark numbers while *still* offering as much flexibility as Apache can offer. The benchmark numbers are to counter Microsoft's FUD. The power and flexibility is what will make everyone switch. :-)
- Ted
- 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/
| |