 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Kevin Loch
|
| | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) If you're reading via HTTP, then it's only one resolution because your client will already have resolved www.lugnet.com. If you're reading via NNTP, then it may be two and it may be one depending on your DNS cache. (...) With a typical URL, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Did I just say that? Oops. That's wrong. There isn't any jump.cgi in the context of NNTP -- only HTTP. Duh. So it's never more than 1 DNS lookup in the case of NNTP and never more then 2 DNS lookups in the case of HTTP -- and in practice, it (...) (24 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
