Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S280985AbRKCQnt>; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 11:43:49 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S280987AbRKCQnj>; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 11:43:39 -0500
Received: from mustard.heime.net ([194.234.65.222]:56017 "EHLO
	mustard.heime.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S280985AbRKCQnc>; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 11:43:32 -0500
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 17:43:29 +0100 (CET)
From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy@karlsbakk.net>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@fenrus.demon.nl>
cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, khttpd mailing list <khttpd-users@zgp.org>
Subject: Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux
In-Reply-To: <20011103162642.A25824@fenrus.demon.nl>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111031740300.8812-100000@mustard.heime.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> tux is more advanced than khttpd. It's also more intrusive to the kernel as
> far as core changes are concerned. These changes allow for higher
> performance, but you'll only notice that if you want to fill a gigabit line
> or more.....

Are there any good reasons why to run khttpd, then?
What I need is a server serving something between 50 and 500 concurrent
clients - each downloading at 4-8Mbps.

Which one would be best? Anyone have an idea?

thanks

roy

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

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