Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Dec 1999 12:54:52 +1100 | From | Lincoln Dale <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |