Re: Conventions for Sharing User Agent Profiles

On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Koen Holtman wrote:

> Simon Spero:

> I'm particularly interested in what you propose to include in the UA
> profile.  There is a tradeoff between covering a larger area of
> negotiation and getting more `profile cache misses' with your scheme,

With NG, there isn't quite a strong a division between the UA profile and 
the individual user's profile; profiles can be modified dynamically; 
the server has the option of either caching the whole modified profile, 
or just the 'base class' profile; the client just needs to know and note  
what profile has been cached. 

> where do you stop exactly?  How many `profile cache misses' do you
> estimate under your proposal?

The question of where you stop is up to the server; just caching the UA 
specific base profiles wins big; spending  the extra effort to cache 
per-user profiles is an even bigger win - the tradeoff depends on how 
much perisistent storage you wan tto dedicate to the problem. 

I would expect to see a big win with a cache size of around 20 (enough for
the most popular Nevergethere, Exploder, and Slosaic versions to be safe
from getting flushed by the small fry. There'd be a bigger win around 
2000, as even the small-fry get to stay put.

For a big site with a regular audience, it might be worth spending a 
hundred dollars or so on this and dedicating up to a gig or to profile 
caching; this keeps things really fast for caching.

Simon (more later)


---
Cause maybe  (maybe)		      | In my mind I'm going to Carolina
you're gonna be the one that saves me | - back in Chapel Hill May 16th.
And after all			      | Email address remains unchanged
You're my firewall -    	      | ........First in Usenet.........

Received on Tuesday, 13 August 1996 07:33:31 UTC