W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Idempotent partial updates

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:00:45 +1300
Message-ID: <4F4EAE1D.20409@qbik.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

On 1/03/2012 11:56 a.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 01/03/2012, at 9:34 AM, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>> Last time I sampled Cache-control response headers (over couple million hits crawling sites), I found a large majority use it to prevent caching.  Very few to enable it.  It's a shame.
>> so moving from a naive HTTP/1.0 style cache to a compliant HTTP/1.1 style cache actually resulted in a huge reduction in cache utility.  Without ignoring cache-control directives as you say, it's hard to get more than a 10% effective bandwidth benefit from caching, which frankly is not worth the pain.
> Not sure what you're crawling, but my experience is that effective bandwidth savings is MUCH higher, even on a conservatively configured cache.

it was a couple years ago now.

> And anecdotal evidence suggests it's getting better; see:
> http://httparchive.org/trends.php (~45% of responses have caching headers)
> http://httparchive.org/interesting.php  (~40% of responses with CC have a max-age>  0)

ok, that 40% of 45% = 18% overall.

>  and if you restrict to the top 1000 sites, both numbers are higher, about 60% each. Combined with heuristic freshness, what's the problem?

did you do any tests without heuristic freshness?  That's the area where 
in the past we've had the most problems.



> Cheers,
> --
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/

Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 23:01:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:00 UTC