> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
>
> > The boa HTTP server might be as good a place to start too: it
> > doesn't fork either (except to run CGI scripts). Actually, thttpd
> > sounds pretty similar. I hadn't looked at it before. Have you
> > compared them at all?
>
> Nope, but the
Andrew Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:24:27PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, ym g wrote:
>> > Are there plans for any apps like thin/fast [maybe in kernel]
>> > webserver which uses kqueue
>>
>> I've been tinkering with kq'ing thttpd - in fact I
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> probably said:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> > The boa HTTP server might be as good a place to start too: it
> > doesn't fork either (except to run CGI scripts). Actually, thttpd
> > sounds pretty similar. I hadn't looked at it before. Have you
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> The boa HTTP server might be as good a place to start too: it
> doesn't fork either (except to run CGI scripts). Actually, thttpd
> sounds pretty similar. I hadn't looked at it before. Have you
> compared them at all?
Nope, but the 't' appealed to m
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:24:27PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, ym g wrote:
> > Are there plans for any apps like thin/fast [maybe in kernel]
> > webserver which uses kqueue
>
> I've been tinkering with kq'ing thttpd - in fact I have it working (which
> was trivial), althoug
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, ym g wrote:
> Are there any applications which use this ?
A few at the moment, but they're growing. tail -f, and the l0pht-watch
ports are the only apps I know of at the moment, both of which achieve
dramatic reductions in CPU time (and better performance, for l0pht-watch)
d
