Subject:
|
Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Nov 2000 06:55:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
158 times
|
| |
|
|
Are you sure it's not latency in DNS resolution? That is usually
a big factor in how fast a page comes up. A good test is
to try the same link again with your browser cache turned off
and see what happens.
While I understand the usefulness of the information that jump.cgi
collects, It is bad form IMO. It introduces unnecessary
complexity to an otherwise simple (by design) event.
An offsite hyperlink should be a hyperlink, not a server side function.
Of course in reality I could care less until I notice it break or
introduce some kind of delay.
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> As preface, for those that don't know what the LUGNET jump.cgi does...
>
> It is a way to track stats on who goes where. For example, when I type
> http://www.miltontrainworks.com into a post, the web interface rendering
> technology shows the URL in different text color/font and further, modifies
> the URL to add a jump.cgi invocation underneath (that is... the resource
> locator actually followed becomes
> http://news.lugnet.com/jump.cgi?http://www.miltontrainworks.com (2)
>
> I know why this is considered a good thing.
>
> And I recall discussion about the delay introduced being minimal.
>
> Recently, though, I am seeing that the delay introduced is going up,
> significantly. In fact, so much delay is being added, that on this brand new
> 750 Mhz P3 384m Windows 2000 system (where I haven't tweaked any of the time
> parameters)... on this fairly fast system, when I am dialed in, about 1/2
> the time IE times out. I have to then manually strip off the jump stuff to
> actually get to the URL.
>
> Hence the subject... is it just me? Is anyone else seeing this? Has it
> gotten slower over time? Can it be sped up at all? Can it be turned off? I'd
> complain less if I had access to the stats, I guess, because I'm curious
> about usage and stuff. But I hate paying performance penalties, and this is
> a problem where throwing more sand at it (this machine is 50% faster than my
> old one) didn't help.
>
> Where I care the most is when I am previewing one of my own posts and want
> to check the URLs. If I get a timeout then, it can be bad news for the
> posting process. Can it be suppressed just there? Those chases aren't
> statistically valid anyway, it's just the poster checking his work, not a
> real reference.
>
> 1 - with apologies to fans (and anti-fans) of GOTOs
>
> 2 - it will be interesting to see if this particular reference gets
> "doublejumped" once I post this.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
| Let me try to be clearer. (...) This is almost certainly what a lot of it indeed is. Using jump.cgi theoretically doubles the latency since two resolutions are required. But it's not ALL the delay, some surely, is at the server itself while it (...) (24 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
| As preface, for those that don't know what the LUGNET jump.cgi does... It is a way to track stats on who goes where. For example, when I type (URL) into a post, the web interface rendering technology shows the URL in different text color/font and (...) (24 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
