- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:56:16 +1100
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
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. 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) … and if you restrict to the top 1000 sites, both numbers are higher, about 60% each. Combined with heuristic freshness, what's the problem? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 22:56:59 UTC