Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux

[Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk]

>> how much do you think you can get out of a server with several 1Gb
>> ethernet cards, multiple 66MHz/64bit PCI busses, multiple SCSI busses or
>> perhaps some sort of SAN solution based on FibreChannel 2?
>
> Ok,
> on this hardware i think that the problem is the that the Kernel and
> Webserver need to suport that ( each of the 1Gbit card is bound to its
> own process and on Multiprozessor machine that the prozess is fixed to
> one CPU to minimize the siwtch overhead, also im not firm with the
> FibreChannel2
> spezifikation i think that there can some trouble with the load, but much
> more important is to know how much different data is served, because then
> you talk about khttpd i think that it is definit static data and so the
> question
> is how much, because on an ideal case the whole set of files is cached
> in the
> ram, with 500 hundred Users i think there is only minmal patch in the
> kernel to
> do for higher file handles. So if there is only there the choice left open
> tux or khttpd i think you should use tux

What's this patch thing?
Do I need to patch up or rewrite parts of the kernel to support <1000 file
handles?

---
Computers are like air conditioners.
They stop working when you open Windows.