linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dirk Moerenhout <dirk@staf.planetinternet.be>
To: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy@karlsbakk.net>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 21:24:37 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111032104330.608-100000@dirk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111031740300.8812-100000@mustard.heime.net>

> 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.

Are those people doing tons of requests or are they just downloading large
files? If they are downloading large files the type of serversoftware will
be the least of your problems. About anything can give you the full
bandwidth you can put out on your networkcards when you are serving few
requests and are just pushing out mass amount of data.

When it comes to serving people such huge amount of data you should also
take in mind that buying one big machine is not allways the right road to
take.

As an example say that the data you're serving is less than 36GB in total.
In that case you can easily buy 4 typical 2U rackmount servers with 9GB
RAID1/36GB RAID1, Dual CPU, enough RAM, 1Gb NIC and pay less than a 8-Way
system.  Furthermore those 4 servers give you more redundancy (one can
literally go up in smoke and you still lose only 25% power), they will in
scale better and so on and so on.

In the end, unless you are handling tons of requests, your concern should
be what hardware servers/switches/routers you need and certainly not what
software. That discussion by itself would off course get quite off topic
for lkml.

Dirk Moerenhout ///// System Administrator ///// Planet Internet NV


  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-11-03 20:25 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
2001-11-03 20:24   ` Dirk Moerenhout [this message]
     [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=Pine.LNX.4.33.0111032104330.608-100000@dirk \
    --to=dirk@staf.planetinternet.be \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=roy@karlsbakk.net \
    /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).