Re: multiget reports Re: Thoughts on relation to WebDAV

I agree that most of the general bandwidth goes to YouTube, but
caches take off load from origin servers. Anyway, if caches have
become less relevant than a multiget doesn't represent much gain
either. The only overhead on a persistent connection is a few request
and response headers.

A multiget is a simple client-side aggregation. You can obtain the
complete tree with one request and then perform individual gets.
I do this for synchronisation purposes and the performance is just
fine.

Werner.

On 28 May 2008, at 10:15, Jack Cleaver wrote:

>
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Helge Hess wrote:
>>> ... Probably this was discussed before? Was the conclusion that
>>> pipelining is a sufficient replacement? ...
>> Any kind of a batched GET defeats caching. So far I haven't seen  
>> evidence that doing it will work better than just issuing many GET  
>> requests.
>
> Should caching really be such a big issue for protocol designers in  
> this
> modern world? My ISP has just announced that it is abandoning its
> 20-year-old web-cache, on the grounds that:
>
> - In a broadband world, end-users don't perceive much benefit
> - In a world of SSL, web-apps and sessions, caches don't work anyway
> - You can't seriously expect to cache any useful propertion of
>  multimedia content
>
> The impact of web-caches on global bandwidth usage is presumably
> marginal, nowadays; HTTP page requests must be a pretty small fraction
> of general bandwidth usage. [No stats to hand - ed.]
>
> -- 
> Jack.

--
Werner Donné  --  Re                                     http://www.pincette.biz
Engelbeekstraat 8                                               http://www.re.be
BE-3300 Tienen
tel: (+32) 486 425803	e-mail: [email protected]