Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Jun 1999 14:43:59 -0700 (PDT) | From | Dan Hollis <> | Subject | Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea |
| |
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Chris Smith wrote: > Dan Hollis wrote: > > Exactly. In-kernel http is lower memory profile, simpler, and faster. > > All are major issues in embedded systems. > Hate to burst this bubble, but what is the use of a completely static web > server on an embedded device? None. If you can't use dynamic pages then > you can't report status,
You are *completely* wrong here. You can report status just fine with static pages, I expect youve never actually tried this or you wouldnt have said it.
> and if you can't handle some kind of CGI or whatever else, then you > can't do dynamic configuration. Which means you'll need a CGI-capable > web server running in user space anyway to do useful work in an embedded > device.
A very, very, very minimal userspace web server that does CGI and nothing else.
> Thus, no memory savings.
Bzzt game over thanks for playing.
> The extra memory for in-kernel khttpd might even matter on an embedded > device, so I doubt it would get used anyway.
in-kernel khttpd will likely be smaller than userspace one since kernelspace one doesnt need libc and other overhead.
> Sure, you might be able to make things marginally faster -- just remember > there is a cost there, too. There's a reason that all processes don't run > at privelege 0, and that's because it makes the system less reliable.
There is a reason but thats not one of them
-Dan
- 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/
| |