> On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > data list, and if it encounters a request it can't handle, it just pushes
> > > the socket onto a accept-queue - so the user space side would just accept
> > > the socket as if it came to it directly.
> > This sounds simple, but what about persistent connections? (I think it can
> > be done even then, though)
> "persistent" as in connections that are re-used for multiple requests?
> Yes, I think it should work even for a socket that has already been used
> for another transfer: the kernel can do one (or more) static content
> transfers over the same socket, and then when it gets a request it cannot
> handle it just passes the socket to user space as if it was new.
Dont forget real life issues, if you want this to be more than a
benchmark/MS-basher -- most people will want the khttpd-handled transfers to
show up in apache's logfiles. This could mean a callback in apache to log an
entry (or possibly 'a range of ..' to reduce contextswitches,) a fake
connection over loopback that just discards the data, or khttpd reading
apache config files and parsing *file and *logformat directives.
And lets not forget .htaccess, UserDir, symlink behaviour, and ease of use.
The permission mask for files as used by khttpd might be obvious and easy to
programmers, but imagine the 'Webmaster' (probably MSC, too) putting up new
files and they aren't showing. Or adding a .htaccess wth a few AddHandler
directives and they're not working, eventhough on the testsite they work
fine, and they should work according to the Apache docs.
All in all, the setup gets fairly hairy, especially when you have to take
stupid users into account. I personally doubt the speed difference between
khttpd+apache and an optimized apache or zeus or other webservers is worth
the trouble, especially when you start taking disk and network i/o speed and
latency into account. I'd spend more time showing how Apache/linux
outperforms MS/IIS in real-world applications than confusing my own
supporters with FUD :-)
But then, i might be wrong. i haven't seen much info on howmuch faster
khttpd could become, compared to a fast but simple httpd (and i gather there
isn't much, yet.) If the benifit is large enough, users will cope :-)
-- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net>Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
- 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/