Messages in this thread | | | From | (Miquel van Smoorenburg) | Subject | Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux | Date | Sat, 3 Nov 2001 18:18:04 +0000 (UTC) |
| |
In article <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111031740300.8812-100000@mustard.heime.net>, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy@karlsbakk.net> wrote: >> tux is more advanced than khttpd. It's also more intrusive to the kernel as >> far as core changes are concerned. These changes allow for higher >> performance, but you'll only notice that if you want to fill a gigabit line >> or more..... > >Are there any good reasons why to run khttpd, then? >What I need is a server serving something between 50 and 500 concurrent >clients - each downloading at 4-8Mbps. >Which one would be best? Anyone have an idea?
Seriously? 500*8 Mbit/sec = 4 Gbit/sec
In that case you need at least 10 boxes, each with a gigabit card, with loadbalancing through DNS. Each box will do max. 400 mbit/sec and have 50 clients on it - standard apache will do fine, I think. Otherwise just add a few boxes.
You will need a Juniper M20 or a Cisco 124xx series with 2xSTM16 (OC64) or 1x10GigE upload capacity and 10xGigE slots in it. That will cost as much 100-200 of the Linux boxes so the Linux boxes are the least of your worries. Not to mention the cost of 4 Gbit/sec of Internet bandwidth.
Mike. -- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" -- Albert Einstein.
- 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/
| |