[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: khttpd fate
On 07/21/2009 06:57 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 05:36:25PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 07/21/2009 05:20 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it kind of got replaced by tux, which Red Hat shipped for a
> > > while, but has been dropped now. I seem to recall davej mentioning a
> > > while ago that apache had gotten much better at serving static content,
> > > which is what khttpd/tux were very good at.
> > >
> >
> > Also, lighttpd does really well, all in userspace. After all, static
> > http serving really is mostly a bit of header parsing followed by
> > sendfile(), so as long as a user-space process doesn't just sit on a
> > bunch of memory it can be done very cheaply.
> I think the rise of dynamically generated content was a big thing that
> killed it off. With more and more of the web getting ajaxified, and the
> php etc being offloaded to apache anyway, it just makes more sense to
> have one webserver do everything as long as it's "fast enough".
> I wrote something up on this a few years back when I made the decision to
> drop Tux from the Fedora kernel.

I can certainly explain why we don't use it on, which is
almost all static content. We simply don't want to have to deal with
multiple web servers if we don't have to, and with sendfile() and
threading in Apache, it's reasonably efficient. If it wasn't, we would
probably go to lighttpd.


H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-22 06:55    [W:0.086 / U:4.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site