Re: [khttpd-users] khttpd vs tux

[miquels@cistron-office.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg)]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111031740300.8812-100000@mustard.heime.net>,
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk  <roy@karlsbakk.net> wrote:
>> 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?

Seriously? 500*8 Mbit/sec = 4 Gbit/sec

In that case you need at least 10 boxes, each with a gigabit card,
with loadbalancing through DNS. Each box will do max. 400 mbit/sec
and have 50 clients on it - standard apache will do fine, I think.
Otherwise just add a few boxes.

You will need a Juniper M20 or a Cisco 124xx series with 2xSTM16 (OC64)
or 1x10GigE upload capacity and 10xGigE slots in it. That will cost
as much 100-200 of the Linux boxes so the Linux boxes are the least
of your worries. Not to mention the cost of 4 Gbit/sec of Internet
bandwidth.

Mike.
-- 
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
 and I'm not sure about the former" -- Albert Einstein.