Subject:
|
Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sun, 26 Nov 2000 18:27:36 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm[spamcake].org
|
Viewed:
|
481 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote:
> Sounds good in theory, but I confess I don't know one offhand that would be
> a good test. Large ones are likely to use caching weirdness and small ones
> may have thin pipes that might throw us off. Or so I surmise.
Use <http://quotes-r-us.org> or <http://www.mattdm.org/mindstorms/>. These
are both on a fat pipe and don't use caching.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
| (...) I'm a little confused about the caching issue. Are we talking about DNS caching, or some sort of in-between proxy cache? Or is it the browser cache? Initially I thought that we were talking about DNS lookups taking the most time... If the (...) (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
| (...) Sounds good in theory, but I confess I don't know one offhand that would be a good test. Large ones are likely to use caching weirdness and small ones may have thin pipes that might throw us off. Or so I surmise. Hmm... how about my firm? as (...) (24 years ago, 26-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
|
|
|
|
