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

Re: HTTP2 Expression of Interest : Squid

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:24:10 +0000
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, tom <zs68j2ee@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62159.1342506250@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <20120717055619.GA30530@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:
>On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 08:31:28AM -0400, Patrick McManus wrote:

>> I hesitate to comment, because I've only got a partial push
>> implementation for firefox (and that's on hold right now just due to
>> other priorities) - but the approach I've taken helps I think. Pushed
>> resources are kept in a partitioned cache that is scoped to just the 1
>> "associated-to" resource that triggered the push. When the associated-to
>> resource goes away so does the pushed cache (and is never persisted to
>> disk). Documents are promoted out of this micro cache into the real
>> profile-wide cache when a request is made for them as a sub-resource of
>> the associated-to resource and they "hit" in the micro cache.
>
>It seems to make sense indeed and it's probably the easiest way to
>implement it.

Uhm, doesn't this lead to incredible cache-bloat ?

	index.html + {style.css, logo.png...}
	article.html?art=1 + {style.css, logo.png...}
	article.html?art=2 + {style.css, logo.png...}
	article.html?art=3 + {style.css, logo.png...}
	...

Or did I misunderstand something ?

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 06:24:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 July 2012 06:24:39 GMT