From owner-freebsd-advocacy Wed Sep 6 2:43:54 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from kleenex.apk.net (kleenex.apk.net [207.54.133.91]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAABD37B422 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 02:43:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by kleenex.apk.net (Postfix, from userid 1004) id ED52BC4A8F; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 05:43:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 05:43:51 -0400 From: Stuart Krivis To: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSDulator on Linux? Message-ID: <20000906054351.A26101@kleenex.apk.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG The big problem with porting an app to another platform will always be support. Tech support is horribly expensive. So, let's say that Brett Glass sits down for a marathon coding session and produces the FreeBSDulator. It enables a Linux machine to run apps compiled for FreeBSD. Which version of FreeBSD? Brett will be chasing a moving target, so he'll be expending a lot of effort keeping it current. Which Linux distribution will it run on? All of them? Just RedHat? Linux is a moving target too, so things will have to be updated fairly often. Now we've got our FreeBSDulator, and it runs happily on Distro X (RedHat for this example). How do we convince RedHat to include it? Why should they want to? What benefit will they see from it? How are you going to convince RedHat to take on the additional support costs involved in something as complex as the FreeBSD- ulator? Why should they? A far better way of doing things is to insure that JoeBob Software's LinuxWriter installs and runs perfectly on FreeBSD. JoeBob has never even heard of FreeBSD before. He only knows RedHat. Now, suddenly, somebody with a Daemon on their shirt comes up to him and shows him LinuxWriter running on this FreeBSD thing. Look, it even has a nifty install wrapper that makes the install completely painless. What's more, Brett Glass is providing a lot of support for new installs. JoeBob won't be getting calls, the script points the user to Brett first. I suspect that this will be far more effective than a FreeBSDulator. Convince the developer that FreeBSD is a better "Linux" for them. Substitute "more profitable" for all values of "better." :-) Stuart To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-advocacy Wed Sep 6 17:28:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from oldserver.demon.nl (oldserver.demon.nl [212.238.105.241]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4397A37B422 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by oldserver.demon.nl (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e870SoN05493 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 02:28:50 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from marc@oldserver.demon.nl) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 02:28:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Marc Schneiders X-Sender: marc@unclad.freebeastie.org To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [THTTPD] thttpd - reach file open limit of 4096 (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG The message below (from the thttpd mailing list) indicates that Apache is not the only webserver to favour FreeBSD. Especially the comment on Linux is, ehum, interesting. For those who don't know: thttpd does not have all the special features that apache has. But it is much and much nicer on CPU and memory. It is smaller. Quite a few large sites seem to run it as an images server. Others use it for everything. It also does throttling, which I will not try to explain. You can compile in some modules, PHP for sure. Haven't looked at others. The latest version is in the ports. -- Marc Schneiders --- marc@venster.nl --- marc@schneiders.org FreeBSD unclad.freebeastie.org 5.0-CURRENT (SMP) NetBSD vax.freebeastie.org 1.4Y ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 23:36:12 -0700 From: Jef Poskanzer To: thttpd@bomb.acme.com Subject: Re: [THTTPD] thttpd - reach file open limit of 4096 >I have some HEAVY linux (redhat) servers.. >each one serving 4-7Mbits of 20-40k images.. >(I would like to push them to 20Mbits each) That's only ~100 hits/sec, ~10 million/day. Not that huge. Just last week on this list we learned that thttpd on Linux runs into this system-wide open file limit because Linux keeps an open file handle for mmapped data. Even though thttpd closes the file handle, the kernel keeps it open. That's pretty broken, but what are ya gonna do. So, my suggestions: 1) Switch to FreeBSD. Seriously, you won't regret it. For major web serving, it just kicks Linux's ass in every way. 2) If you're not willing to do that, then try recompiling thttpd with the following line inserted towards the front of mmc.c: #undef HAVE_MMAP This will make it use malloc instead of mmap, so it will be somewhat slower but there's no chance of kernel files left open. Let me know if that fixes it, and I'll add the suggestion to the thttpd notes page. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@acme.com http://www.acme.com/jef/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message