Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:20:58 +0000 From: Dominic Marks <dominic_marks@btinternet.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, Hiten Pandya <hiten@uk.FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: In-Kernel HTTP Server (name preference) Message-ID: <20020219092058.A78717@host213-123-131-110.in-addr.bto> In-Reply-To: <20020219025401.C1B013A9A@overcee.wemm.org>; from peter@wemm.org on Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 06:54:01PM -0800 References: <20020218134544.C48587-100000@patrocles.silby.com> <20020219025401.C1B013A9A@overcee.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 06:54:01PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > Mike Silbersack wrote: > > > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Hiten Pandya wrote: > > > > > hi all, > > > > > > As to conclude this thread (for me.), I have come to the decision of > > > actually starting a project for making a BSD Licensed in-kernel HTTPd > > > server. The project will be on SourceForge.net. > > > > > > As you all know, that when starting a project, a name is needed for > > > project; I completely out of ideas, and I have literally no creative > > > skills. :) > > > > If you want to be really useful, I have a better first step for you. :) > > > > Common wisdom seems to be that Apache is slow, other httpds are faster, > > custom ones are fastest. However, I don't think I've actually seen any > > comparisons since this one of thttpd vs others: > > > > http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/benchmarks.html > > > > Before starting work on a kernel httpd, you might wish to run similar > > benchmarks (with perhaps only 5 different httpds) to see what the current > > performance of FreeBSD is; it may turn out that some limitation in the TCP > > stack is hit even by userland httpds, and your effort would be better > > spent on fixing that first. > > The problem is that our threads implementation sucks. The moment that > thttpd has to do an actual disk read on freebsd, the whole thing comes to a > screeching halt. > > Threaded http servers do not stand up to real-world loads on freebsd, unless > there are very specially constructred scenarios in place.. ie: everything is > in ram, no FS calls ever block, etc. I don't believe tHttpd is threaded. http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/notes.html on the section regarding non-blocking I/O: "The fourth generation. One process only. No non-portable threads/LWPs. Sends multiple files concurrently using non-blocking I/O, calling select()/poll()/kqueue() to tell which ones are ready for more data. Speed is excellent. Memory use is excellent. Portability is excellent. Examples of this generation: Spinner, Open Market, and thttpd. Perhaps Apache will switch to this method at some point. I really can't understand why they went with that complicated pre-forking stuff. Using non-blockijng I/O is just not that hard." > Cheers, > -Peter > -- > Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au > "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message -- Dominic To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020219092058.A78717>