From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 17 15: 6:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C984337B404; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:06:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool0152.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.152] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16caNb-0005Hx-00; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:06:00 -0800 Message-ID: <3C70374D.6F29869C@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:05:49 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dominic Marks Cc: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk , Dag-Erling Smorgrav , hiten@uk.FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: in-kernel HTTP Server for FreeBSD? References: <20020217182721.C1481@host213-123-129-40.in-addr.btop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Dominic Marks wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 07:15:10PM +0100, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > > > > Is there any In-Kernel HTTP Server for FreeBSD, like there is > > > > kHTTPD for Linux? > > > > > > God forbid! Lots of hack value, sure, but not something you'd > > > seriously consider for production use. > > > > well .. So let's turn the question upside-down, and ask "Is there a web > > server or -accelerator for FreeBSD with similar performance as with khttpd > > or Tux? > > Zeus is the best overall. A lot of people also seem to have good > performance from tHttpd and Boa. When you say 'similar performance' > how many Mbit/s can Tux achieve (for static and dynamic content > aggregated). The real figure of merit you should be looking for here is "requests per second" -- HTTP 1.1; if you measure 1.0 requests, you actually end up measuring connection per second, instead, which is not a real figure of merit. BTW: There's actually a couple of ways to get the average connections per second incredibly high -- on the order of 300,000 per second -- but they involve using techniques that are not really useful in real life, since over a certain level, your stall point moves to the number of simultaneous connections you can support vs. the 2 MSL for the TIME_WAIT. Any number over around 30,000 CPS is therefore a ramp-up number, and is not sustainable over a long duration. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message