Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:36:41 +0100 (CET) | From | (Arjan van de Ven) | Subject | Re: khttpd beaten by boa |
| |
In article <20010112084259.B441@marowsky-bree.de> you wrote: > On 2001-01-11T22:20:56, > Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com> said:
>> Then we decided to switch persistant connection off... But boa still wins. >> >> What is wrong here? I would expect transferates of a 3-4 megabytes over a >> localhost interface. The file is certainly in some kind of cache.
> This just goes on to show that khttpd is unnecessary kernel bloat and can be > "just as well" handled by a userspace application, minus some rather very > special cases which do not justify its inclusion into the main kernel.
Well, this test only shows khttpd does badly for localhost, as it doesn't give userspace a fair chance to schedule. It's too bad Christoph didn't test it with the persistent-connections patch that didn't get sent to Linus due to the "no more features" freeze (I don't exactly remember which of the freezes though).
Regarding wether either khttpd or TuX should be in the kernel: I take it that it is your oppinion that neither should be in the kernel. I disagree with that and I think having a http-server-engine (or even a more generic file-serving engine) in the kernel can make sense for high-end uses. The average desktop-user doesn't profit from it, sure. But that also holds for things like hardware-raid or even SCSI. We still want those in though.
Wether TuX or khttpd should be in... well. I agree with DaveM that TuX is certainly the "next and better" generation, and I look forward to working with Ingo and others on it.
Greetings, Arjan van de Ven - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |