Text 6133, 252 rader
Skriven 2005-07-17 18:16:00 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 6131 av Geo (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Disk perf
=====================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0072_01C58AFB.963B4BE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It can't get any faster than the network traffic. I'm at least 15 =
hops from the nyt. If their servers are on the east cost you will be = much
closer. Since all the downloads are small latency matters more = than
throughput which is why with everything cached it still took six = seconds for
me.
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message news:42dafff1@w3.nls.net...
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_0072_01C58AFB.963B4BE0
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 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> It can't get any faster =
than the=20
network traffic. I'm at least 15 hops from the nyt. If their =
servers=20
are on the east cost you will be much closer. Since all the = downloads
are=20
small latency matters more than throughput which is why with everything =
cached=20
it still took six seconds for me.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </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>> wrote=20
in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42dafff1@w3.nls.net">news:42dafff1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<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=20
all the packets. The time I reported is from the first request =
to the=20
last request. I should have included the last response so my =
numbers,=20
which I rounded down to whole seconds, would actually be a bit=20
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 =
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=20
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote =
in message=20
<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=20
in 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=20
50MB. I find that a good round number.<BR><BR>When I was =
on=20
dialup, 5mb seemed like a good cache (50 munutes to =
download<BR>5mb),=20
because cache made a difference. On todays DSL connected=20
computers,<BR>nothing but the previous 4 or so pages should be =
cached,=20
it's just a huge<BR>waste since it only takes a blink to bring =
up a=20
page on DSL. Why todays<BR>browsers continue this outdated =
practice=20
and don't sense the connection<BR>speed and adjust accordingly =
is=20
beyond me.<BR><BR>It's the same logic as the DNS client cache, =
both=20
these caching functions<BR>create limited problems from time =
to time,=20
the goal should be to get away<BR>from problematic methods and =
go for=20
reliability. Of course that's a concept<BR>that's foreign to =
most=20
programmers today, they are blind to the idea of<BR>dropping =
an=20
obsolete function and would rather waste time trying to cure=20
the<BR>problems it=20
=
creates.<BR><BR>Geo.<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOC=
KQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0072_01C58AFB.963B4BE0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|