From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S280992AbRKCRIf>; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 12:08:35 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S280991AbRKCRIO>; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 12:08:14 -0500
Received: from mustard.heime.net ([194.234.65.222]:62929 "EHLO
	mustard.heime.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S280989AbRKCRIH>; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 12:08:07 -0500
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 18:08:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy@karlsbakk.net>
To: Thomas Lussnig <tlussnig@bewegungsmelder.de>
cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, khttpd mailing list <khttpd-users@zgp.org>
Subject: Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux
In-Reply-To: <3BE42379.2050604@bewegungsmelder.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111031805250.8954-100000@mustard.heime.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> Hi do you know about what traffic you are talking ?

Yes. I know.

> Between 200Mps and 4Gps this means you would on the
> max Limit Transver abaout 400MB each second.
> And on the lower limit 20MB.
>
> I think that you shouldn't look for an software web server
> but an GOOD hardware server ( or load balancer ), but i think
> then there is khttpd the right choice.

I don't think good hardware is enough. I mean - I can probably strap up
twenty cool servers from some hardware producer, cluster them together
with some cool software and blah blah blah, but I can't use that money. I
need a good solution - not low-cost, but still lower...

So - good hardware and good software.

---
Computers are like air conditioners.
They stop working when you open Windows.