From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:58:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20020906.115804.109349169.davem@redhat.com> References: <20020906.113448.07697441.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com, hadi@cyberus.ca, tcw@tempest.prismnet.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, niv@us.ibm.com Return-path: To: gh@us.ibm.com In-Reply-To: Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Gerrit Huizenga Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:57:39 -0700 Out of curiosity, and primarily for my own edification, what kind of optimization does it do when everything is generated by a java/ perl/python/homebrew script and pasted together by something which consults a content manager. In a few of the cases that I know of, there isn't really any static content to cache... And why is this something that Apache couldn't/shouldn't be doing? The kernel exec's the CGI process from the TUX server and pipes the output directly into a networking socket. Because it is cheaper to create a new fresh user thread from within the kernel (ie. we don't have to fork() apache and thus dup it's address space), it is faster.