Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Jun 1999 03:04:40 +0200 (MEST) | From | Ricardo Galli Granada <> | Subject | [OFFTOPIC] Re: Preparations for ZD's upcoming Apache/Linux benchmark - Why not Squid? |
| |
On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Alex Belits wrote:
> > OTOH, I can't see why it's impossible to do it completely transparent > for the userspace server -- if request is recognized as not usable for the > in-kernel processing, HTTP server just receives it like if nothing > happened. And, in more "advanced" model, userspace process can do some > "special" shutdown/close operation on its socket, transferring further > control over it to the in-kernel server (but then future accept() will be > able to receive the same TCP connection again, and it will look like > different fd). >
Yes, the proposal should go to web server developers, not to linux-kernel. There is many problems, not only regarding HTTP1.1, but also virtual servers. These cannot be solved with just socket's pushing and shutdown. They need a more complex communication semantics among in-kernel and userland processes. Perhaps, especially for HTTP1.1, all client communication tasks must be dealt by the khttpd with further "ipcs" to user processes. In these case they have to agree at least in basic configuration options (documents directories, directory user authentification, mime-types, follow-links, log files, log formats, put and post processing, etc., etc.).
Anyway, this might be a work to web server developers and not related to linux kernel itself. From a "relaxed" point of view, perhaps it's better to put Squid in the kernel and to make it work in "accelerator mode" with no disk caching and using the original files in the local file system instead. We will get the same result with a more general and smarter solution without touching a single line in any web server.
----- disclaimer: nothing important beyond this line (neither above) -----
IMHO, this is only useful for unreal benchmarking and small web server black boxes (Cisco tried and failed to introduce these gears to the market, the cost in Spain was almost twice of a well configured PII). I do not know any web site in Europe with a 100 mbps connection to Internet. Finland is years ahead than other european countries regarding Internet infraestructure. I am convinced their bigger pipes (most) to Internet do not pass a 34 mbps ATM connection (although there are other well known linux hackers that can have a deeper knowledge of the country).
Also, if they exist, communication costs should be bigger than $ 50.000 a month, which justify the price of a couple of high-end PCs for load balancing. I did not hear Altavista, Yahoo, Amazon, Excite or Netscape IT managers complaining of the lack of scalability of their servers, they just add new computers and "load splitters"* or they do clustering.
If a company claims their customers/audience can fullfill a 100 mbps pipe to Internet (or even Intranet) and they try to solve the problem with _only one_ Xeon Quad with NT because "Linux does not scale well", they are cheating you or the IT manager must fired inmediately.
* Sorry, I don't remember the commercial names of these products but they exist and are very common in big web sites with lots of CGIs and databases.
--ricardo
- 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/
| |