[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Preparations for ZD's upcoming Apache/Linux benchmark
> > > And I'm very interested in people doing kernel modules for static
> > > content serving with fall-backs to Apache etc. That is, to a large
> > > degree, what NT seems to be doing, with IIS-only magic system calls
> > > etc. And we can do it so much more cleanly.
> > Does that mean you'd accept a patch which did this?
> > What about the arguments that this would be increased kernel bloat/do
> > it in user space, etc?
> There are definitely gains to having static serving and similar things
> in kernel space... but this sort of thing should really be a
> separately-distributed kernel module. khttpd could definitely be useful
> on 2.0, 2.2, and 2.3 kernels. And the development pace and stability
> of khttpd and the kernel might not necessarily intersect often.

Why no to have a khttpd "fully compatible" with Apache Core modules?

By this way, the fallback to Apache for dynamic contents will be
strightforward and still we can have SSI functionality implemented in
kernel server module.

Indeed, sysadmins and webmaster can decide to use Apache core into
the kernel or userland, without touching a line in config files (having a
"standard" /etc/httpd/httpd.conf conf file).

The communication among the khttpd and userland apache servers can be done
as usual in Apache 1.3.x, through shared memory.


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:0.061 / U:35.676 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site