- From: Ray Davis <rdavis@masschaos.de.convex.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:55:09 +0200
- To: www-html@w3.org
> <resource href="http://www.foo.com/foo.tar.gz"> > <meta name="content-length" content="1235234"> > <meta name="content-md5" content="23l4kj23l4kj23"> > <link rel=replica href="http://www.foo.com/foo.tar.gz"> > <link rel=replica href="http://www.bar.com/mirror/foo.tar.gz"> > <link rel=replica href="http://www.baz.com/net-stuff/foo1.9.tar.gz"> > </resource> > > So a <resource>-savvy browser, when requested to follow the link > to http://www.foo.com/foo.tar.gz would have enough information > to try the replicas automatically, if www.foo.com didn't seem > to be responding. ... > The algorithm for seleting a replica -- and for fail-over -- needn't > be the same for all browsers. It should be network-friendly (i.e. > don't always start all TCP connections at once). Something like: This idea solves a lot of problems. Now if there were some way to decide which mirror is "closer" networking wise. Note that if I were writing a browser to handle the above resource, I would fire off all 3 mirror connections at once and see which one is best after a few seconds, then drop the rest. Perhaps I would only do this for my personal use though. :) It's something to keep in mind anyway. Ray
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 1996 06:56:28 UTC