headers
Alex Kiernan | 15 Apr 2004 10:39
Favicon

Patches for x86-64

I don't know if these are strictly correct (x86-64 kernel hacking is
new territory for me), but they seem to work. I was actually working
with the tux patch in the current FC-devel RPM, rather than the
unbundled patch, but since this is all base kernel support, I expect
that its the same for both.

diff -ur kernel-2.6.5.redhat/linux-2.6.5/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c kernel-2.6.5/linux-2.6.5/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c
--- kernel-2.6.5.redhat/linux-2.6.5/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c	2004-04-11
18:53:12.000000000 +0100
+++ kernel-2.6.5/linux-2.6.5/arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c	2004-04-13 04:51:20.506994864 +0100
 <at>  <at>  -30,6 +30,7  <at>  <at> 
 #include <asm/pgalloc.h>
 #include <asm/nmi.h>
 #include <asm/kdebug.h>
+#define __KERNEL_SYSCALLS__
 #include <asm/unistd.h>
 #include <asm/delay.h>
 #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
 <at>  <at>  -226,3 +227,8  <at>  <at> 

 EXPORT_SYMBOL(memcpy_toio);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(memcpy_fromio);
+
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(execve);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(sys_write);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(sys_chroot);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(sys_chdir);
diff -ur kernel-2.6.5.redhat/linux-2.6.5/include/asm-x86_64/unistd.h kernel-2.6.5/linux-2.6.5/include/asm-x86_64/unistd.h
--- kernel-2.6.5.redhat/linux-2.6.5/include/asm-x86_64/unistd.h	2004-04-04
04:37:36.000000000 +0100
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
William M. Shubert | 17 Apr 2004 09:50

Running Tux with no secondary server?

I was considering Tux for a server of mine, but the configuration I was
planning isn't one of the two recommended in the docs, so I thought I'd
check here and make sure it wouldn't cause errors.

Basically, I want to run Tux with no secondary server. Any requests that
Tux can't answer should get a static error page.

My reason is that the server is very busy with a large application. It
has a large number of files (over a million) which it needs to touch
often, and which get downloaded to web clients fairly often as well.
Right now it runs Apache, which takes up a decent chunk of memory that
I'd rather use for the "main" application. Tux seems to use a lot less
memory - especially on a per connection basis.

Since I have no dynamic content at all coming off of this system, is
this possible with Tux? I see tux has a /proc entry for the port of the
secondary web server, should I do anything special there to tell tux
"don't bother," or would it be OK to just leave that value at some port
that nobody is listening on?

Thanks. If Tux can't do this I guess I'll look into other web servers
that are lighter than apache, but seems that Tux is the lightest of them
all, and comes on RHEL by default, so it would be my first choice.
        Bill Shubert (wms <at> igoweb.org)
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Ingo Molnar | 18 Apr 2004 15:37
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Running Tux with no secondary server?


* William M. Shubert <wms <at> igoweb.org> wrote:

> Since I have no dynamic content at all coming off of this system, is
> this possible with Tux? I see tux has a /proc entry for the port of
> the secondary web server, should I do anything special there to tell
> tux "don't bother," or would it be OK to just leave that value at some
> port that nobody is listening on?

if the secondary server does not exist then Tux will generate a simple
error reply if it encounters a request that it cannot handle. I.e. it
should work just fine with static content.

	Ingo
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. | 18 Apr 2004 17:01

Re: Running Tux with no secondary server?

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:37:31 +0200, Ingo Molnar <mingo <at> elte.hu> wrote:

>
> * William M. Shubert <wms <at> igoweb.org> wrote:
>
>> Since I have no dynamic content at all coming off of this system, is
>> this possible with Tux? I see tux has a /proc entry for the port of
>> the secondary web server, should I do anything special there to tell
>> tux "don't bother," or would it be OK to just leave that value at some
>> port that nobody is listening on?
>
> if the secondary server does not exist then Tux will generate a simple
> error reply if it encounters a request that it cannot handle. I.e. it
> should work just fine with static content.
>
> 	Ingo

I'm a relative newbie for linux, but...

When I was testing and debugging my server setup on Redhat 9, I turned off  
the apache secondary server.
	service httpd stop
Somewhere there is a configuation that will say don't start the httpd on  
bootup.
You'll need to find and configure that too. This will leave tux running by  
itself.

The Tux configuration file specifies which files to pass to the secondary  
server.
This is the TUX/redirect line in file etc/tux.mime.types (on my Redhat 9
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ingo Molnar | 19 Apr 2004 09:07
Picon
Picon
Favicon

[patch] tux3-2.6.5-A3


the latest Tux patch merged to 2.6.5 is available at:

    	redhat.com/~mingo/TUX-patches/tux3-2.6.5-A3

this patch also includes the x86-64 fixes from Alex Kiernan.

 	Ingo
Permalink | Reply | 22 comments |
headers
Ingo Molnar | 19 Apr 2004 10:27
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: [patch] tux3-2.6.5-A3


>     	redhat.com/~mingo/TUX-patches/tux3-2.6.5-A3
>  
> this patch also includes the x86-64 fixes from Alex Kiernan.

it also has an UML compilation fix from Sapan Bhatia.

	Ingo
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Max Helmet | 19 Apr 2004 16:45
Picon

AW: Running Tux with no secondary server?

> Basically, I want to run Tux with no secondary server. Any requests that
> Tux can't answer should get a static error page.
> Right now it runs Apache, which takes up a decent chunk of memory that
> I'd rather use for the "main" application. Tux seems to use a lot less
> memory - especially on a per connection basis.

If scalability and memory usage are your key requirements, you should have a
look at http://www.fefe.de/fnord/ as well.

Regards
Max
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ingo Molnar | 21 Apr 2004 17:44
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: the questionmark problem


* Thierry de Montaudry <thierry <at> mailhub.co.za> wrote:

> Is there any way to get tux to handle URLs with a '?' without
> recompiling the kernel?

have you tried "net.tux.ignore_query = 1" in /etc/sysctl.conf?

	Ingo
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ingo Molnar | 21 Apr 2004 19:31
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: the questionmark problem


* Thierry de Montaudry <thierry <at> mailhub.co.za> wrote:

> Tried it in sysctl.tux... got:
> 	error: 'net.tux.ignore_query' is an unknown key

do you have the /proc/sys/net/tux/ignore_query switch? You should have
it with the latest versions of Tux.

	Ingo
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Anton Blanchard | 22 Apr 2004 18:19
Picon
Favicon

Re: [patch] tux3-2.6.5-A3

> 
> the latest Tux patch merged to 2.6.5 is available at:
> 
>     	redhat.com/~mingo/TUX-patches/tux3-2.6.5-A3
>  
> this patch also includes the x86-64 fixes from Alex Kiernan.

I removed almost all of the in kernel syscalls on ppc64 and it broke
tux. I think we can use syscalls.h now and call them directly.

I also have a fix for a compile error with tux not compiled as a
module. Its a quick fix im not sure how you want to solve it.

Anton

---

 foobar2-anton/net/socket.c     |    2 +-
 foobar2-anton/net/tux/extcgi.c |    5 +++--
 foobar2-anton/net/tux/main.c   |    5 +++--
 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff -puN net/tux/main.c~fix_tux net/tux/main.c
--- foobar2/net/tux/main.c~fix_tux	2004-04-22 23:59:44.579665398 +1000
+++ foobar2-anton/net/tux/main.c	2004-04-23 00:01:29.694430863 +1000
 <at>  <at>  -10,6 +10,7  <at>  <at> 
 #define __KERNEL_SYSCALLS_NO_ERRNO__

 #include <net/tux.h>
+#include <linux/syscalls.h>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane