Re: Bloat? (khttpd)

[Lincoln Dale]

At 02:49 24/12/99 +0100, Martin Dalecki wrote:
>Lincoln Dale wrote:
> >
> > At 19:33 23/12/99 -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > >so far, we have no reason to believe that khttpd performs better than,
> > >say, phhttbd, even on silly static-only benchmarks.  and even if it did,
> > >the sensible conclusion would be that there's something wrong with Linux,
> > >not that webserving should be in the kernel!
> >
> > actually, khttpd does get around one limitation currently inherent inside
> > linux --
> > and that is that there is no mechanism for zero-copy.
>
>Wrong. There is the sendfile syscall.

... which, in turn, has its own inherent scaling problems.
care to have 30,000 simultaneous streams open?

last time i looked, context was held on a per-user-thread.  there was some 
relatively-recent discussion on changing its semantics to no longer be a 
blocking syscall, but i don't think there much final consensus out of that.

cheers,

lincoln.
PS. sendfile might be useful for sending from one stream to another.  but 
not-so when you want to stream (a) out of memory, (b) non-stream traffic 
(eg. multicast), and/or (c) scatter-gather from [another] i/o device.