lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Bloat? (khttpd)
At 02:49 24/12/99 +0100, Martin Dalecki wrote:
>Lincoln Dale wrote:
> >
> > At 19:33 23/12/99 -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > >so far, we have no reason to believe that khttpd performs better than,
> > >say, phhttbd, even on silly static-only benchmarks. and even if it did,
> > >the sensible conclusion would be that there's something wrong with Linux,
> > >not that webserving should be in the kernel!
> >
> > actually, khttpd does get around one limitation currently inherent inside
> > linux --
> > and that is that there is no mechanism for zero-copy.
>
>Wrong. There is the sendfile syscall.

... which, in turn, has its own inherent scaling problems.
care to have 30,000 simultaneous streams open?

last time i looked, context was held on a per-user-thread. there was some
relatively-recent discussion on changing its semantics to no longer be a
blocking syscall, but i don't think there much final consensus out of that.


cheers,

lincoln.
PS. sendfile might be useful for sending from one stream to another. but
not-so when you want to stream (a) out of memory, (b) non-stream traffic
(eg. multicast), and/or (c) scatter-gather from [another] i/o device.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.169 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site