Re: Bloat? (khttpd)

Lincoln Dale (ltd@interlink.com.au)
Fri, 24 Dec 1999 12:05:01 +1100


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.

a user-space application needs to read() from kernel-to-user on a socket,
then write() user-to-kernel back.

2 x memory-copies.

i'm currently working on this; i have a _real_ application that cannot push
more than 320 mbit/sec to/from the network (on gig-E).

its called too-many-copies and a 133mhz FSB.

we're exceeding performance levels that i suspect either of khttpd or
phttpd have been benchmarked to. (ie. phttpd is mostly showing the
benefits of async-i/o-event-notification. even it will be limited by
copies in the long-run).

cheers,

lincoln.
PS. rather than bitching and moaning about it, yes, i am working on a
fix. the way i'm doing it is a new character device driver which allows
user-space to mmap() into physical ram. maybe not pretty, maybe not
acceptable to the l-k folk, but it will certainly get us out of a current
ceiling limitation.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/