Text 6131, 219 rader
Skriven 2005-07-17 21:04:30 av Geo (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 6129 av Rich (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Disk perf
=====================
From: "Geo" <georger@nls.net>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_037A_01C58B13.206A6410
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I just clicked and counted, 1...2...3..finished
I'm serious though, set your cache to 1mb, purge it, go to that =
/content.ie5 directory and purge it as well then give it a try.
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42dafba4@w3.nls.net...
You can't compare two machines connected to different networks at =
different times of the day.
Did you measure the 4 seconds by counting or measuring? I used a =
network capture with timestamps for all the packets. The time I = reported is
from the first request to the last request. I should have = included the last
response so my numbers, which I rounded down to whole = seconds, would actually
be a bit longer.
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message =
news:42dae95a$1@w3.nls.net...
I clicked on your NYT link and my browser started up and the page =
came up in less than 4 seconds total. Perhaps instead of an empty cache = you
should try it with your cache set to 1mb.
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42d9397d@w3.nls.net...
Because the cache still has a very significant performance =
benefit and even with DSL speeds pages take far longer than a blink to =
appear. For example, I just tried www.nytimes.com with an empty cache. =
There are 86 HTTP requests that take 10 seconds. With the cache it only = took
6 seconds.
Your ideas on DNS are equally silly, particularly because DNS =
is explicitly a multi-level cache.
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message =
news:42d9304a$1@w3.nls.net...
"Frank Haber" <frhaber@N0SPMrcn.com> wrote in message
news:42d84be9$1@w3.nls.net...
> (Browser cache)
>
> Firefox and Moz come set to 50MB. I find that a good round =
number.
When I was on dialup, 5mb seemed like a good cache (50 munutes =
to download
5mb), because cache made a difference. On todays DSL connected =
computers,
nothing but the previous 4 or so pages should be cached, it's =
just a huge
waste since it only takes a blink to bring up a page on DSL. Why =
todays
browsers continue this outdated practice and don't sense the =
connection
speed and adjust accordingly is beyond me.
It's the same logic as the DNS client cache, both these caching =
functions
create limited problems from time to time, the goal should be to =
get away
from problematic methods and go for reliability. Of course =
that's a concept
that's foreign to most programmers today, they are blind to the =
idea of
dropping an obsolete function and would rather waste time trying =
to cure the
problems it creates.
Geo.
------=_NextPart_000_037A_01C58B13.206A6410
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I just clicked and counted,=20
1...2...3..finished</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm serious though, set your cache to =
1mb, purge=20
it, go to that /content.ie5 directory and purge it as well then give it = a=20
try.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42dafba4@w3.nls.net">news:42dafba4@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> You can't compare two =
machines=20
connected to different networks at different times of the =
day.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Did you measure the 4 =
seconds by=20
counting or measuring? I used a network capture with timestamps =
for all=20
the packets. The time I reported is from the first request to =
the last=20
request. I should have included the last response so my numbers, =
which I=20
rounded down to whole seconds, would actually be a bit =
longer.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42dae95a$1@w3.nls.net">news:42dae95a$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I clicked on your NYT link and my =
browser=20
started up and the page came up in less than 4 seconds total. =
Perhaps=20
instead of an empty cache you should try it with your cache set to=20
1mb.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d9397d@w3.nls.net">news:42d9397d@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Because the cache =
still has a=20
very significant performance benefit and even with DSL speeds =
pages take=20
far longer than a blink to appear. For example, I just tried =
<A=20
href=3D"http://www.nytimes.com">www.nytimes.com</A> with an empty=20
cache. There are 86 HTTP requests that take 10 =
seconds. With=20
the cache it only took 6 seconds.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Your ideas on DNS =
are equally=20
silly, particularly because DNS is explicitly a multi-level=20
cache.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d9304a$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d9304a$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>"Frank=20
Haber" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:frhaber@N0SPMrcn.com">frhaber@N0SPMrcn.com</A>> wrote = in=20
message<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"news:42d84be9$1@w3.nls.net">news:42d84be9$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
>=20
(Browser cache)<BR>><BR>> Firefox and Moz come set to =
50MB. =20
I find that a good round number.<BR><BR>When I was on dialup, =
5mb seemed=20
like a good cache (50 munutes to download<BR>5mb), because cache =
made a=20
difference. On todays DSL connected computers,<BR>nothing but =
the=20
previous 4 or so pages should be cached, it's just a =
huge<BR>waste since=20
it only takes a blink to bring up a page on DSL. Why =
todays<BR>browsers=20
continue this outdated practice and don't sense the =
connection<BR>speed=20
and adjust accordingly is beyond me.<BR><BR>It's the same logic =
as the=20
DNS client cache, both these caching functions<BR>create limited =
problems from time to time, the goal should be to get =
away<BR>from=20
problematic methods and go for reliability. Of course that's a=20
concept<BR>that's foreign to most programmers today, they are =
blind to=20
the idea of<BR>dropping an obsolete function and would rather =
waste time=20
trying to cure the<BR>problems it=20
=
creates.<BR><BR>Geo.<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOC=
KQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_037A_01C58B13.206A6410--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|