|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: decreased caching efficiency?
Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Cooper" <[email protected]> To: "Dana Hudes" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:33 AM Subject: Re: decreased caching efficiency? > At 09:44 10/20/00 -0400, Dana Hudes wrote: > > > And browsers implementing caches in memory or disk are also causing > copyright violation. Yet for the most part browser caches are considered a > Good Thing. No and yes. The user has a license to display the image on their screen for as long as they keep the browser window open on the page . Browser cache is good for user because they may scroll or resize the window and don't have to fetch. > > >In general I do not want people to have my photos stored in their browser > >cache (much less permanently saved). > >I do actually have plans to change around some things in my site to take > >advantage > >of browser and network caching (e.g. putting the style sheet in a separate > >file, > >ditto the JavaScript and any other constant information I can). > > And that saves practically nothing, given that they're very small > files. Your choice, of course. True. The hope is somehow though to save processing the files not just transferring. > > >When I switch to CGI-based delivery of images the cache will of course > >become pass-through > >since there will be no file to cache just a stream of bytes.... > > Is the assumption there that by using CGI you'll automatically tweak a > configuration in a caching proxy? If so then it's a flawed assumption. > But there is no file to cache? I don't have enough gear to set up a test with squid myself (and that would only be one cache) but how is the engine to know to cache it? My understanding is that CGI-generated content is usually not cached. > > Having had a very quick look at your site, it seems a little strange that > you want to defeat caching of those objects that soak up bandwidth; the > request to perform "click-through" on the advert suggests that you're using > the revenue to pay for your bandwidth costs. (So, one assumes that the > more the material was cached, the less you'd have to pay, and the less > you'd have to worry about page impressions.) I particularly like the way > that you require my browser to send a Referer field to be allowed to view > the pictures ;-) I do indeed use the revenue to pay for bandwidth but the pictures, by and large (its a work in progress) have been tuned for file size; still takes time to decompress but hey, what can I do. Also the projected load vs. the bandwidth is such that I have a LOT more room left. The users get a reasaonbly large bitmap in a reasonably small file. ImageMagick is nifty set of programs. The problem I have is pirates who collect images and use them for other purposes. the pictures...well, I actually don't want them hanging around on the user's disk once the browser is no longer on the page. I haven't figured out how to make that happen other than expiration of 1 minute or something. I'm working on a system for managing/publishing photo web sites like mine. It will be released as free software when I get it all working satisfactory and maybe I'll write some documentation. > > Nice photos though... Thanks. You do point out that while I pay fixed cost for bandwidth (my server is behind a DSL circuit) others might use the technology to host where they pay for usage as it occurs. An quandary.
|