- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:02:09 +1100
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
I'm talking to Steve about getting more fine-grained caching stats in there now… On 01/03/2012, at 10:00 AM, Adrien de Croy wrote: > > > 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/ > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 23:02:39 UTC