Subject:
|
Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:12:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
203 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > This is almost certainly what a lot of it indeed is. Using jump.cgi
> > theoretically doubles the latency since two resolutions are required.
> 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.
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 really should never be more than 1 DNS lookup even in the case
of HTTP because the client already knows the IP address from when it fetched
the page.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
| (...) 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)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
