From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:39:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:39:57 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:27526 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:39:56 -0400 Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 10:37:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20020906.103717.82432404.davem@redhat.com> To: gh@us.ibm.com 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 Subject: Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000 From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: References: <18563262.1031269721@[10.10.2.3]> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Gerrit Huizenga Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 10:26:04 -0700 One of our goals is to actually take the next generation of the most common "large system" web server and get it to scale along the lines of Tux or some of the other servers which are more common on the small machines. For some reasons, big corporate customers want lots of features that are in a web server like apache and would also like the performance on their 8-CPU or 16-CPU machine to not suck at the same time. High ideals, I know, wanting all features *and* performance from the same tool... Next thing you know they'll want reliability or some such thing. Why does Tux keep you from taking advantage of all the feature of Apache? Anything Tux doesn't handle in it's fast path is simple fed up to Apache.