Subject:
|
Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:03:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
870 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> 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.
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 latter, mattdm.org and quotes-r-us.org have a TTL (time to live, or
caching period) of 24 hours:
> dig www.mattdm.org
; <<>> DiG 8.2 <<>> www.mattdm.org
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 4
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; www.mattdm.org, type = A, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.mattdm.org. 23h59m48s IN CNAME www.kagomi.com.
www.kagomi.com. 23h59m52s IN A 128.197.20.162
If we're not talking about DNS caches, ignore this last part. :)
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
