Re: kHTTPd: Good or Bad
Matthew Wilcox (Matthew.Wilcox@genedata.com)
Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:09:21 +0200
On Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 02:35:00PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Zach Brown wrote:
> > the benefit from kHTTPd will be boiled down to an interface for caching
> > files and sending them out a socket, I'll wager. I'm all for that! What
> > I don't like is the connection management and protocol parsing in the
> > kernel; phhttpd (currently) and the apache 2.0 rewrite will do that for us
> > in userspace.
>
> Not everyone can just switch to apache at the drop of a hat, as nice as
> it might be. In this case khttpd becomes very useful as a generic 100%
> transparent httpd accelerator for *any* webserver -- think about
> commercial closed-source ones too.
http://www.netcraft.co.uk/Survey/Reports/199906/platform.html
"The percentage of Apache specific servers [...] is now 61.12 (from
60.79 last month)."
You'll forgive me if I'm sceptical of your comment.
--
Matthew Wilcox <willy@bofh.ai>
"Windows and MacOS are products, contrived by engineers in the service of
specific companies. Unix, by contrast, is not so much a product as it is a
painstakingly compiled oral history of the hacker subculture." - N Stephenson
-
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/