Subject:
|
Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:15:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
293 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
Just did this on one of my machines at home. As of yesterday I'm cruising
at a solid 1.2mb over my ADSL connection, with most websites popping up near
instantly, the way they used to at the office before Napster killed our DS-3.
Win98 SE
IE 5.5
Colon about 4 seconds to get to the bricksmiths page
encoded colon about 4 seconds
plain link - instantly
(I also have IE set to grab the page at every visit, but just to make sure I
emptied my cache and did that test 3 times. No matter what I do with the
cache, though, I can go back and forth, back and forth and click on one of
the jump.cgi links and it takes the same amount of time to bring me to the
page.)
Netscape 6
Same results, essentially, which is kinda weird - I remember it being very
quick with 4.xx.
Dunno what all this means, mostly don't care, but whether it is an IE bug or
a Windows weirdness or the script being slow, it is real, and it is annoying
enough that I've completely altered the way I deal with links on LUGNET. I
can still get a link copied and pasted and trimmed in less than 4 seconds,
and I get the benefit of not being ticked off waiting for some silly process
that doesn't obviously benefit me to finish. :/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
| (...) I, at this client in the UK at a time when no one else is in the office and the connection SHOULD be lightly loaded (it's all new hardware here but we go somewhere else before it goes public) don't get quite the same results Mike does... same (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
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
|
|
|
|
