[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
    On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
    > 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.

    I think the point is that khttpd works with any webserver software. It
    doesnt try to do everything it just tries to do one thing (serve static
    files, a very common operation), and do it as optimally as possible, while
    dropping dynamic stuff eg cgis etc off to userspace daemon.

    Switching webserver software is not always an option, no matter how nice
    Zach Brown's httpd might turn out to be.

    In this case khttpd becomes very desirable since it can squeeze a lot more
    performance out of a system for very little effort, in a completely
    transparent way.

    khttpd is also attractive for embedded systems 8)


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.018 / U:3.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site