Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 02:30:50 -0500 From: Zach Brown <zab@zabbo.net> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: dank@alumni.caltech.edu, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Message-ID: <20001209023050.B30968@tetsuo.zabbo.net> In-Reply-To: <3A31CBCF.B8E21E1B@softweyr.com>; from wes@softweyr.com on Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 11:06:07PM -0700 References: <20001024225637.A54554@prism.flugsvamp.com> <39F6655A.353FD236@alumni.caltech.edu> <20001025115457.X28123@fw.wintelcom.net> <20001025170117.C87091@prism.flugsvamp.com> <20001207154925.A25785@walton.maths.tcd.ie> <3A30E115.CF7C76E8@newsguy.com> <3A31120E.3536F07D@alumni.caltech.edu> <3A31CBCF.B8E21E1B@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 11:06:07PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote: > Dan Kegel wrote: > > > > His role right now is to keep the kernel as simple as possible. > > So the major advancements of pushing file servers and web servers into > the kernel fit into this role how? totally orthoganal to the `linus thinks bsd has cooties' "discussion", but I'll take a stab at shedding some light. as we're veering wildy off-topic for -hackers, I'll be brief. the few people who may actually care can email me off list for more info. as dan mentioned, khttpd added no complexity at all to the 'core kernel'. That is, it added no controversial APIs that have to be maintained over time, etc. Thats simply because it was a lame hack of moving a wimpy static http responder into kernel threads :) tux, being a much more interesting design, messes with all sorts of stuff. Most notably it added working "zero copy" tcp and lots of SMP scalability fixes. getting damn-near-linear performance inprovements as cpu and interfaces are added is definitely interesting, if not even remotely useful for 99% of the userbase. Ingo did it as an intial exploratory implementation. It served its role, current more careful "zero copy" development is branched from early tux code. so anyway, the trend isn't to push servers into the kernel. khttpd was put in because it was of no risk to Linus and ended up acting as motivation to do it right, if its going to be done at all. Doing it then showed the possible gains which are now being folded into proper APIs that userland servers will be able to use. (dunno if kiofd and such interfaces have been discussed in public yet, I know they've been babbled about at conferences. think splice meets iolite, using fds rather than new syscalls and without the VM tricks..) -- zach To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001209023050.B30968>