* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux [not found] <3BE427CD.702@bewegungsmelder.de> @ 2001-11-03 18:02 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 2001-11-03 19:08 ` Thomas Lussnig 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk @ 2001-11-03 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Lussnig; +Cc: linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list > I don't mean an cluster of PC's, depending on the volume for the download > exist some pretty "cache-pox" that mean no load balancing but the box can > cache up to 1-4 GB ob data in the ram and the "web-server" there is > running > in hard wired asic's i think P5, Cisco and another Producer build it. > Becasue in my opinion the traffic of up to 4gbit is not handable on an > linux box (thinking on x86 achritekture) hm... how much do you think you can get out of a server with several 1Gb ethernet cards, multiple 66MHz/64bit PCI busses, multiple SCSI busses or perhaps some sort of SAN solution based on FibreChannel 2? --- Computers are like air conditioners. They stop working when you open Windows. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 2001-11-03 18:02 ` [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 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 0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Thomas Lussnig @ 2001-11-03 19:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk; +Cc: linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list > > >how much do you think you can get out of a server with several 1Gb >ethernet cards, multiple 66MHz/64bit PCI busses, multiple SCSI busses or >perhaps some sort of SAN solution based on FibreChannel 2? > Ok, on this hardware i think that the problem is the that the Kernel and Webserver need to suport that ( each of the 1Gbit card is bound to its own process and on Multiprozessor machine that the prozess is fixed to one CPU to minimize the siwtch overhead, also im not firm with the FibreChannel2 spezifikation i think that there can some trouble with the load, but much more important is to know how much different data is served, because then you talk about khttpd i think that it is definit static data and so the question is how much, because on an ideal case the whole set of files is cached in the ram, with 500 hundred Users i think there is only minmal patch in the kernel to do for higher file handles. So if there is only there the choice left open tux or khttpd i think you should use tux - more defelopment - more tuning/config/log options - better code ( khttpd soud's a little bit of try and error ) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 2001-11-03 19:08 ` Thomas Lussnig @ 2001-11-03 19:14 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 2001-11-03 19:21 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk @ 2001-11-03 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Lussnig; +Cc: linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list, Tux mailing list >> how much do you think you can get out of a server with several 1Gb >> ethernet cards, multiple 66MHz/64bit PCI busses, multiple SCSI busses or >> perhaps some sort of SAN solution based on FibreChannel 2? > > Ok, > on this hardware i think that the problem is the that the Kernel and > Webserver need to suport that ( each of the 1Gbit card is bound to its > own process and on Multiprozessor machine that the prozess is fixed to > one CPU to minimize the siwtch overhead, also im not firm with the > FibreChannel2 > spezifikation i think that there can some trouble with the load, but much > more important is to know how much different data is served, because then > you talk about khttpd i think that it is definit static data and so the > question > is how much, because on an ideal case the whole set of files is cached > in the > ram, with 500 hundred Users i think there is only minmal patch in the > kernel to > do for higher file handles. So if there is only there the choice left open > tux or khttpd i think you should use tux What's this patch thing? Do I need to patch up or rewrite parts of the kernel to support <1000 file handles? --- Computers are like air conditioners. They stop working when you open Windows. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 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 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2001-11-03 19:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Lussnig; +Cc: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list > on this hardware i think that the problem is the that the Kernel and > Webserver need to suport that ( each of the 1Gbit card is bound to its > own process and on Multiprozessor machine that the prozess is fixed to > one CPU to minimize the siwtch overhead, also im not firm with the > FibreChannel2 Each GigE card will need its own 66MHz PCI bus. Each PCI bridge will need to be coming off a memory bus that can sustain all of these and the CPU at once. At that point it really doesnt look much like a PC. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 2001-11-03 19:21 ` Alan Cox @ 2001-11-03 19:18 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 2001-11-03 19:31 ` J Sloan ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk @ 2001-11-03 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Thomas Lussnig, linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list, Tux mailing list > Each GigE card will need its own 66MHz PCI bus. Each PCI bridge will need > to be coming off a memory bus that can sustain all of these and the CPU > at once. > > At that point it really doesnt look much like a PC. How much raw speed do you think I can manage to get out of a really cool n-way server from Compaq? I beleive we'll go for a Compaq server, as that's what's been decided some time ago. I read something by Linus about linux scalability, and I beleive he said that 'linux [2.4] scales good up to 4 cpus, but not that good futher on [to 8?]'. Can anyone fill in the holes here? thanks roy --- Computers are like air conditioners. They stop working when you open Windows. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 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 2001-11-03 19:37 ` Alan Cox 2001-11-04 0:07 ` Erik Mouw 2 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: J Sloan @ 2001-11-03 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk Cc: Alan Cox, Thomas Lussnig, linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list, Tux mailing list Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > I read something by Linus about linux scalability, and I beleive he said > that 'linux [2.4] scales good up to 4 cpus, but not that good futher on > [to 8?]'. Can anyone fill in the holes here? Nobody scales better 1-4 CPUs, as indicated by specweb99 - at 8 CPUs linux is OK, but not as dominating.... When the high end specialists from IBM etc can send in patches that enhance high end performance without hurting the low end case the numbers on 8-32 CPUs should really start to shine. (There has been progress on that front seen on lkml) cu jjs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 2001-11-03 19:31 ` J Sloan @ 2001-11-04 1:19 ` Alan Cox 2001-11-05 10:15 ` Ingo Molnar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2001-11-04 1:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: J Sloan Cc: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Alan Cox, Thomas Lussnig, linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list, Tux mailing list > Nobody scales better 1-4 CPUs, as indicated > by specweb99 - at 8 CPUs linux is OK, but not > as dominating.... At specweb. For some 2 and a large number of 4 processor workloads our scheduler does not make good decisions ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 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 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Ingo Molnar @ 2001-11-05 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tux mailing list Cc: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Alan Cox, Thomas Lussnig, linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, J Sloan wrote: > Nobody scales better 1-4 CPUs, as indicated > by specweb99 - at 8 CPUs linux is OK, but not > as dominating.... This is a common misinterpretation of the TUX SPECweb99 numbers. Performance and scalability are two distinct things. Also, maximum performance on a given hardware, and the true scalability of the software running on it are two different things as well. You can have a very slow webserver that scales very well - and you can have a fast webserver that scales poorly, but if the fast one beats the slow one even with the highest number of CPUs used, the 'good' scalability of the slow webserver does not matter much, does it? Also, TUX will max out an i486 pretty quickly, and it will scale very badly on 4-way i486 systems (yes such beasts do exist), simply because the hardware itself is pushed to the maximum, more CPUs simply do not help - performance does not increase. Ideally we want to have a very fast and very scalable webserver - TUX is an attempt to be just that, and nothing more. TUX maxes out the hardware on all systems tested so far - so the true 'scalability' of the Linux kernel and TUX simply cannot be measured: it's the hardware (CPU, networking card, etc.) that is slowing TUX down, not TUX's scalability faults. Algorithmically and SMP caching/locking-wise the kernel and TUX is doing the right thing already, under these read-mostly pagecache & TCP/IP loads. [well, this is not some black art, we simply fixed every limit that showed up on the way.] TUX maxes out 2-way and 4-way systems as well, while IIS does not appear to do a good job there. So we can say that it's proven that IIS does not scale well. I can still not say whether Linux+TUX scales well, i can only say that it's too fast for the given hardware :-) why does it look like as if TUX scaled well on 1, 2, 4 CPUs? Because hardware designers are sizing up systems with more CPUs, so the true limits of the hardware show a similar scalability graph as the scalability graph would be of a scalable webserver. Scalability of the software can only be judged on hardware where every component (CPU, system board, cards) is faster than what TUX can push - so it can be measured exactly how TUX (and the kernel) reacts to the addition of more CPUs. Once a webserver pushes to the limits of the hardware, the true scalability of the code gets distorted. > When the high end specialists from IBM etc > can send in patches that enhance high end > performance without hurting the low end case > the numbers on 8-32 CPUs should really start > to shine. [...] sadly, the TUX workloads scale 'perfectly' already both within TUX and within the kernel (to the best of my knowledge), from an algorithmic point of view - i dont think anyone could claim to be able to improve that significantly, even on 32 way systems. My main development box is an 8-way ia32 box (and a fair number of other kernel hackers have such boxes as well), so we know the 8-way limits pretty well. Note that the TUX patches include 3 extra scalability patches to the stock kernel: - the pagecache SMP-scalability patch [gets rid of pagecache_lock] - the smptimers patch [makes timers completely per-CPU.] - the per-CPU page allocator There might be other areas in the kernel that could scale better under non-TUX workloads (especially the block IO code has some scalability problems), but none of them affects TUX in any measurable way on the systems we measured. I'd say that TUX should scale pretty well to 16 or 32 CPUs, and SGI's tests appear to prove this in part: the pagecache scalability patch alone helped their (non-TUX) NUMA cached-dbench performance measurably. [on an 8-way system the pagecache scalability patch is only a small but measurable win.] And if any kernel scalability limit pops up on bigger boxes, we can fix it - there are few fundamental issues left. Ingo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 2001-11-05 10:15 ` Ingo Molnar @ 2001-11-06 4:46 ` J Sloan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: J Sloan @ 2001-11-06 4:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mingo Cc: Tux mailing list, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Alan Cox, Thomas Lussnig, linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list Ingo, Thanks for commenting on this - Ingo Molnar wrote: > On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, J Sloan wrote: > > > Nobody scales better 1-4 CPUs, as indicated > > by specweb99 - at 8 CPUs linux is OK, but not > > as dominating.... > > This is a common misinterpretation of the TUX SPECweb99 numbers. > Performance and scalability are two distinct things. Absolutely correct, I spoke sloppily. I should have said, "nobody performs better...". But the scalability certainly _appears_ to be better than average - > TUX maxes out 2-way and 4-way systems as well, while IIS does not appear > to do a good job there. So we can say that it's proven that IIS does not > scale well. I can still not say whether Linux+TUX scales well, i can only > say that it's too fast for the given hardware :-) indeed... > why does it look like as if TUX scaled well on 1, 2, 4 CPUs? Because > hardware designers are sizing up systems with more CPUs, so the true > limits of the hardware show a similar scalability graph as the scalability > graph would be of a scalable webserver. Excellent point, thanks for making the distinction. Thanks as well for the other excellent insights, it was informative to hear what you had to say. cu jjs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 2001-11-03 19:18 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 2001-11-03 19:31 ` J Sloan @ 2001-11-03 19:37 ` Alan Cox 2001-11-04 0:07 ` Erik Mouw 2 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2001-11-03 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk Cc: Alan Cox, Thomas Lussnig, linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list, Tux mailing list > > At that point it really doesnt look much like a PC. > > How much raw speed do you think I can manage to get out of a really cool > n-way server from Compaq? I beleive we'll go for a Compaq server, as > that's what's been decided some time ago. Take a look at the tux benchmark numbers. Thats pushing the limit of the hardware ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 2001-11-03 19:18 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 2001-11-03 19:31 ` J Sloan 2001-11-03 19:37 ` Alan Cox @ 2001-11-04 0:07 ` Erik Mouw 2001-11-04 15:32 ` John Alvord 2 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Erik Mouw @ 2001-11-04 0:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk Cc: Alan Cox, Thomas Lussnig, linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list, Tux mailing list On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 08:18:19PM +0100, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > > Each GigE card will need its own 66MHz PCI bus. Each PCI bridge will need > > to be coming off a memory bus that can sustain all of these and the CPU > > at once. > > > > At that point it really doesnt look much like a PC. > > How much raw speed do you think I can manage to get out of a really cool > n-way server from Compaq? I beleive we'll go for a Compaq server, as > that's what's been decided some time ago. Not that much. Alan's point is that you're pushing the limit of the memory bandwidth, not the number of CPUs. This is the single reason that high traffic websites either use some serious non-PC hardware (IBM Z-series, for example) or a large number of PCs in parallel to share the load. > I read something by Linus about linux scalability, and I beleive he said > that 'linux [2.4] scales good up to 4 cpus, but not that good futher on > [to 8?]'. Can anyone fill in the holes here? The number of CPUs really doesn't matter in this case. With several GigE cards memory bandwidth and latency is your main problem. Erik -- J.A.K. (Erik) Mouw, Information and Communication Theory Group, Faculty of Information Technology and Systems, Delft University of Technology, PO BOX 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands Phone: +31-15-2783635 Fax: +31-15-2781843 Email: J.A.K.Mouw@its.tudelft.nl WWW: http://www-ict.its.tudelft.nl/~erik/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 2001-11-04 0:07 ` Erik Mouw @ 2001-11-04 15:32 ` John Alvord 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: John Alvord @ 2001-11-04 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Erik Mouw Cc: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Alan Cox, Thomas Lussnig, linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list, Tux mailing list On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Erik Mouw wrote: > On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 08:18:19PM +0100, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > > > Each GigE card will need its own 66MHz PCI bus. Each PCI bridge will need > > > to be coming off a memory bus that can sustain all of these and the CPU > > > at once. > > > > > > At that point it really doesnt look much like a PC. > > > > How much raw speed do you think I can manage to get out of a really cool > > n-way server from Compaq? I beleive we'll go for a Compaq server, as > > that's what's been decided some time ago. > > Not that much. Alan's point is that you're pushing the limit of the > memory bandwidth, not the number of CPUs. This is the single reason > that high traffic websites either use some serious non-PC hardware (IBM > Z-series, for example) or a large number of PCs in parallel to share > the load. > > > I read something by Linus about linux scalability, and I beleive he said > > that 'linux [2.4] scales good up to 4 cpus, but not that good futher on > > [to 8?]'. Can anyone fill in the holes here? > > The number of CPUs really doesn't matter in this case. With several > GigE cards memory bandwidth and latency is your main problem. Interesting parallel... In the last few years there have been multiple cases where people reported benchmarks where a dual processir gave less thruput then a single processor. In most cases, the single processor benchmark had saturated the memory bandwidth and a second processor didn't make much difference. This was on "cheap" multi-processors. john alvord ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <3BE42379.2050604@bewegungsmelder.de>]
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux [not found] <3BE42379.2050604@bewegungsmelder.de> @ 2001-11-03 17:08 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk @ 2001-11-03 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Lussnig; +Cc: linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list > 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20011103165129.B26040@fenrus.demon.nl>]
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux [not found] <20011103165129.B26040@fenrus.demon.nl> @ 2001-11-03 16:56 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk @ 2001-11-03 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arjan van de Ven; +Cc: khttpd mailing list, linux-kernel > TUX has been tested more (by me, Ingo and the other Red Hat folks and on > several live sites) and is more advanced in that it also has more features > (virtual hosting etc etc)..... Will this eventually result in tux being merged into the official kernel and khttpd will cease to exist? --- Computers are like air conditioners. They stop working when you open Windows. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20011103162642.A25824@fenrus.demon.nl>]
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux [not found] <20011103162642.A25824@fenrus.demon.nl> @ 2001-11-03 16:43 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 2001-11-03 18:18 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg 2001-11-03 20:24 ` Dirk Moerenhout 0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk @ 2001-11-03 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arjan van de Ven; +Cc: linux-kernel, khttpd mailing list > 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? thanks roy --- Computers are like air conditioners. They stop working when you open Windows. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 2001-11-03 16:43 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk @ 2001-11-03 18:18 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg 2001-11-03 20:24 ` Dirk Moerenhout 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Miquel van Smoorenburg @ 2001-11-03 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 2001-11-03 16:43 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 2001-11-03 18:18 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg @ 2001-11-03 20:24 ` Dirk Moerenhout 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Dirk Moerenhout @ 2001-11-03 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk; +Cc: linux-kernel > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* khttpd vs tux @ 2001-11-03 16:21 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 2001-11-04 5:26 ` [khttpd-users] " Chul Lee 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk @ 2001-11-03 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel; +Cc: khttpd mailing list hi can someone tell me what the difference is, in functionality, speed etc. between the tux (2.0?) webserver and khttpd? I'm working on a project where all I need is raw speed - really raw speed - and I really don't know which to choose. roy --- Computers are like air conditioners. They stop working when you open Windows. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 2001-11-03 16:21 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk @ 2001-11-04 5:26 ` Chul Lee 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Chul Lee @ 2001-11-04 5:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, linux-kernel; +Cc: khttpd mailing list You had better refer a paper whose tile is High-Performance Memory-Based Web Servers: Kernel and User-Space Performance, by Philippe at IBM.T.J Watson They also have experiments on performance between various kernel mode web server and user mode web server. Chul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk" <roy@karlsbakk.net> To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Cc: "khttpd mailing list" <khttpd-users@zgp.org> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 1:21 AM Subject: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux > hi > > can someone tell me what the difference is, in functionality, speed etc. > between the tux (2.0?) webserver and khttpd? I'm working on a project > where all I need is raw speed - really raw speed - and I really don't know > which to choose. > > roy > > --- > Computers are like air conditioners. > They stop working when you open Windows. > > _______________________________________________ > khttpd-users maillist - khttpd-users@zgp.org > http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/khttpd-users ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-11-06 4:47 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <3BE427CD.702@bewegungsmelder.de> 2001-11-03 18:02 ` [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux 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 [not found] <20011103162642.A25824@fenrus.demon.nl> 2001-11-03 16:43 ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 2001-11-03 18:18 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg 2001-11-03 20:24 ` Dirk Moerenhout 2001-11-03 16:21 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk 2001-11-04 5:26 ` [khttpd-users] " Chul Lee
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).