Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about devfs)

Arjan van de Ven (root@fenrus.demon.nl)
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:21:02 +0200


In article <Pine.LNX.4.02A.9906180443400.2836-100000@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us> you wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Richard Gooch wrote:

> Existing khttpd code isn't the best implementation on the idea, it's
> neither optimized nor particularily well designed.

True. very true.

> Similar by basic
> operation thing that works as a cache and does clean fallback to the
> userspace server (khttpd fallback mechanism is primitive and inefficient),

Have you seen version 0.1.2pre5? It provides a MUCH better fallback
mechanism.

>> > Apache 2.0 should be.
> will cause the performance to be increased so dramatically. So far all
> changes still involve heavy modifications in kernel that are as little
> portable between systems as in-kernel HTTP caching support.

kHTTPd itself isn't portable of course. BUT it requires NO changes to Apache
and virtually no changes to the existing kernel (other than to export a
couple of symbols).

Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven

-
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/