- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:00:45 +1300
- 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 Adrien > > 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