North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: decreased caching efficiency?
> 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. Dana, isn't there a HUGE difference between piracy and transient storage? Intent is one. > 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. A quandry to which whoever pays can respond accordingly. Anything from optimizing delivery of your site to cutting it off completely. Sure, that's an extreme, but don't you agree? -- Christian Kuhtz Architecture, BellSouth.net <[email protected]> -wk, <[email protected]> -hm Atlanta, GA "Speaking for myself only."