Re: linux 2.2.19pre and thttpd (VM-global problem?)

From: Andrea Arcangeli (
Date: Sat Dec 30 2000 - 12:43:08 EST

On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 08:21:12PM -0800, dean gaudet wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 06:50:18PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Your cgi will keep the other CPU occupied, or run two of them. thttpd has
> > > superb scaling properties compared to say apache.
> >
> > I think with 8 CPUs and 8 NICs (usual benchmark setup) you want more than 1 cpu
> > serving static data and it should be more efficient if it's threaded and
> > sleeping in accept() instead of running eight of them (starting from sharing
> > tlb entries and avoiding flushes probably without the need of CPU binding).
> hey, nobody sane runs an 8 CPU box with 8 NICs for a production webserver.
> 8 single CPU boxes, or 4 dual boxes behind a load balancer. now that's
> more common, more scalable, more robust. :)

and it also provides high avaibility that is mandatory in a setup that
needs high performance anyways.

> oh yeah they all run perl, java, or php too :) i've seen sites with more

and zope+python as well indeed.

> than 100 dynamic front-ends and a pair of 350Mhz x86 boxes in the corner
> handling all the static needs (running apache even!). a pair only 'cause
> of redundancy reasons, not because of load reasons.

Exactly. I totally agree with you (everybody who talked with me about those
issues or attended my last two talks can confirm I agree ;).

But you're talking about real world. I was only talking about benchmarks.
Don't complain me if usual benchmark setup is done with one server N-way SMP +
N-Gbit-NICs (infact I can't run any usual webserving benchmark at home).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 21:00:14 EST