Subject:
|
Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:21:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
560 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Todd Lehman writes:
> Let's try an experiment. Let's encode the URL that gets passed to jump.cgi
> two different ways: one with an unencoded colon and one with an encoded
> colon. The two URL versions appear here on a test page:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/test/jump/colontest.html
Very slow both times. I had been to Yahoo earlier in the day including that
exact URL and hadn't flushed any caches.
Don't forget, though, that this may not be the best test destination, since
www.yahoo.com isn't a single DNS location, it's many, due to that technology
whose name I can't remember... Akatomi?
Doing a tracert to www.yahoo.com shows that I was actually trying to get to
www.yahoo.akadns.net [216.32.74.52]
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
| (...) Well, not quite...I'm not ready to posit a cause-effect chain. I was merely trying to say that I couldn't fathom how the script itself could add anything more than a small fraction of a second. Slow DNS is one possible answer, but if it (...) (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
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
|
|
|
|
