On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 00:14, Vidiot wrote: > I do not disagree with ISPs trying to save money, but when a cahe proxy > works as badly as the one they are using, it has to hurt their customers.
Not for the ISP, and not for their customers, in most cases. This is not a normal case.
True, and I agree: this is not a normal case. Rarely does a static page somewhere on the Internet change less than 10 minutes after a fresh request was loaded by your cache, and then a customer insists that you do a refresh anyway. In 99.9% of all cases, I would not expect it to be a problem.
It bothers me because it is essentially pinching pennies, sacrificing quality of service for a small marginal savings. Since allowing the proxy server to /check for a newer page/ only incurs a significant bandwidth penalty if the page has indeed changed, then only that 0.1% of cases will act differently and those page loads represent an insignificant savings. That's a cheap mentality, and I don't like it.
it was an inconvenience for Rodolfo, but that setting saves the ISP a [probably] healthy sum in connectivity costs (in-between carriers).
Nowadays there are plenty more dynamic pages which are difficult to cache, but from a while back I can tell you that the ISP I used to help run saved a solid 55% of the outside (satellite) bandwidth it would have required by having a good cache implemented. That meant $30,000 a month in savings on bandwidth alone, never mind the joyous customers who got a response back in 10ms and 4 Mbps over our cable network, instead of 675ms and 256 Kbps over a satellite link.
Still, setting their cache to be so aggressive today is going to generate measly savings over what a properly-configured cache would have.
-- Rodolfo J. Paiz rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.simpaticus.com
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
