From: miquels@cistron-office.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 18:18:04 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9s1ccs$5cd$2@ncc1701.cistron.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20011103162642.A25824@fenrus.demon.nl> <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111031740300.8812-100000@mustard.heime.net>
In article <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111031740300.8812-100000@mustard.heime.net>,
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy@karlsbakk.net> wrote:
>> tux is more advanced than khttpd. It's also more intrusive to the kernel as
>> far as core changes are concerned. These changes allow for higher
>> performance, but you'll only notice that if you want to fill a gigabit line
>> or more.....
>
>Are there any good reasons why to run khttpd, then?
>What I need is a server serving something between 50 and 500 concurrent
>clients - each downloading at 4-8Mbps.
>Which one would be best? Anyone have an idea?
Seriously? 500*8 Mbit/sec = 4 Gbit/sec
In that case you need at least 10 boxes, each with a gigabit card,
with loadbalancing through DNS. Each box will do max. 400 mbit/sec
and have 50 clients on it - standard apache will do fine, I think.
Otherwise just add a few boxes.
You will need a Juniper M20 or a Cisco 124xx series with 2xSTM16 (OC64)
or 1x10GigE upload capacity and 10xGigE slots in it. That will cost
as much 100-200 of the Linux boxes so the Linux boxes are the least
of your worries. Not to mention the cost of 4 Gbit/sec of Internet
bandwidth.
Mike.
--
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former" -- Albert Einstein.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-11-03 18:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20011103162642.A25824@fenrus.demon.nl>
2001-11-03 16:43 ` [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2001-11-03 18:18 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg [this message]
2001-11-03 20:24 ` Dirk Moerenhout
[not found] <3BE427CD.702@bewegungsmelder.de>
2001-11-03 18:02 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2001-11-03 19:08 ` Thomas Lussnig
2001-11-03 19:14 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2001-11-03 19:21 ` Alan Cox
2001-11-03 19:18 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2001-11-03 19:31 ` J Sloan
2001-11-04 1:19 ` Alan Cox
2001-11-05 10:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-11-06 4:46 ` J Sloan
2001-11-03 19:37 ` Alan Cox
2001-11-04 0:07 ` Erik Mouw
2001-11-04 15:32 ` John Alvord
[not found] <3BE42379.2050604@bewegungsmelder.de>
2001-11-03 17:08 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
[not found] <20011103165129.B26040@fenrus.demon.nl>
2001-11-03 16:56 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2001-11-03 16:21 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2001-11-04 5:26 ` [khttpd-users] " Chul Lee
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='9s1ccs$5cd$2@ncc1701.cistron.net' \
--to=miquels@cistron-office.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).