Subject:
|
Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:46:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
191 times
|
| |
|
|
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,
I’m no expert on this, but I’m pretty sure that, above a certain level, the
end users hardware will not affect the problem you mention. The slowness
will occur somewhere between the LUGNET server and your computer. For what
it is worth, I have also noticed a general LUGNET tardiness recently – but I
had assumed the problems were to do with the decrepit part if the
departmental network I’m connected to.
Also, I assume that because TL is recording our footsteps through LUGNET, he
must have a use for the data?
Scott A
> 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 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
|
|
|
|
