Re: khttpd/tux/thttpd
"Alex Kramarov" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.tux |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
yes, but khttpd lacks some features that are a must for large scale servers like persistent connections (khttpd webpage says that this feature is available as a test patch , for a year now), if-modified and etags, expiration time on content, and without them you loose all the advantage ... -------Original Message------- From: [email protected] Date: éåí ùðé 14 àå÷èåáø 2002 19:39:02 To: [email protected] Subject: khttpd/tux/thttpd Sorry for taking up khttpd here, but is there anyone who has tested that on a productionserver which crashes with Tux? Is far as I know, khttpd is not as fast as tux, and some people says it has a lot of bugs, but if there is any stable version it is about to consider?.... Both khttpd and tux is anyhow capable of serving hundreds of concurrent connections... Thats where apache fails :( I've also tried thttpd, which fails after approx 15 minutes. (eating up all memory). The system did not hang, so it was possible to ssh into it and reboot. Thttpd was fast enough, when it worked, but 15 minutes is worse than tux :p //Andreas _______________________________________________ tux-list mailing list [email protected] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/tux-list .