lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.066 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site