Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 3 Nov 2001 20:14:26 +0100 (CET) | From | Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <> | Subject | Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux |
| |
>> how much do you think you can get out of a server with several 1Gb >> ethernet cards, multiple 66MHz/64bit PCI busses, multiple SCSI busses or >> perhaps some sort of SAN solution based on FibreChannel 2? > > Ok, > on this hardware i think that the problem is the that the Kernel and > Webserver need to suport that ( each of the 1Gbit card is bound to its > own process and on Multiprozessor machine that the prozess is fixed to > one CPU to minimize the siwtch overhead, also im not firm with the > FibreChannel2 > spezifikation i think that there can some trouble with the load, but much > more important is to know how much different data is served, because then > you talk about khttpd i think that it is definit static data and so the > question > is how much, because on an ideal case the whole set of files is cached > in the > ram, with 500 hundred Users i think there is only minmal patch in the > kernel to > do for higher file handles. So if there is only there the choice left open > tux or khttpd i think you should use tux
What's this patch thing? Do I need to patch up or rewrite parts of the kernel to support <1000 file handles?
--- Computers are like air conditioners. They stop working when you open Windows.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |