Re: khttpd vs tux

bert hubert (ahu@ds9a.nl)
Sat, 3 Nov 2001 17:49:45 +0100

On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 05:45:29PM +0100, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> > tux holds all records, khttpd has been measured to be slower than some
> > userspace webservers.
>
> What's bad about tux, then? There usually is something...

The main hurdle for Tux is that it is not in the mainstream kernel, and
consists of a patch. I think RedHat has precompiled kernels with Tux in
them. The aa kernels also contain tux.

There are also strong indications that 'zero copy tcp/ip' may enable
userspace webservers to achieve comparable bandwidths (many gbits/second).
See for example X15: http://www.chromium.com/x15tech.html

Regards,

bert

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com          Versatile DNS Software & Services
Trilab                                 The Technology People
Netherlabs BV / Rent-a-Nerd.nl           - Nerd Available -
'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/