[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090722002039.GF11051@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:20:39 -0400
From: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ted Merrill <atheros@...uildsw.com>
Subject: Re: khttpd fate
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 06:15:40PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> I was reviewing khttpd [1] history [2], and the last I see is it was
> merged for the 2.4 kernel with enthusiasm. I don't see any information
> about this for 2.6 though, nor can I find any other notes about why
> this was removed. Just curious if someone recalls why it was removed.
>
> Also, I really hate how trolly this questions sounds but here it goes anyway:
>
> Such userspace-kernel hacks shouldn't be necessary anymore based on
> 'performance/latency' arguments right? I take it khttpd wasn't serious
> but more of a hack for fun and now we should be able to laugh about
> it?
>
> [1] http://www.fenrus.demon.nl/
> [2] http://lwn.net/2001/0118/kernel.php3
>
I think it kind of got replaced by tux, which Red Hat shipped for a
while, but has been dropped now. I seem to recall davej mentioning a
while ago that apache had gotten much better at serving static content,
which is what khttpd/tux were very good at.
regards, Kyle
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists