- From: James Green <jmkgre@essex.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 17:03:11 +0000 (GMT)
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:36:53 +0000 James R Grinter <jrg@demon.net> wrote: > the reason that there are currently still traffic problems, despite > usage of caches, is because the cache usage isn't high enough. Too > many people still try and go direct. Because it isn't high enough, > many people won't invest in increasing their caching capacity (chicken > and egg problem). True enough currently, but only over the past two years or so have people come to accept the Internet as a household name. Give it another ten years, and a great many more people 'hooked up' to it, and see if the problem hasn't escalated. I know from experience from both home and University (both Britain), that sometimes sites over in the States are uncontactable due to high usage, so what happens when the Internet's usage increases, perhaps expotentially, over the coming years? If you're so concerned about getting people using caches, why not really push them, rather than mentioning them in that magazine the American's in the audience won't know about (Despatches)? Giving away IE 4 free on a free magazine supplement was a good idea with caching already set-up - those people who don't know about it won't know how to switch it off. However, this relates only to Demon customers, so how about some readily-available public servers? Ones which are advertised and maybe even used by ISPs themselves? Then you start getting in to my thinking of country-specific versions. > the trick, the thing that needs solving, is getting the client to go > to the closest point where they can get that identical content from. And also, to ensure that 'local' copies of the file are always up to date. Perhaps if my idea *was* implemented, network traffic would be low enough to justify robots searching web sites themselves, updating their caches with new bits all the time. Now there's a thought - the user won't actually get to the site themselves at all, a robot gets it for a cache for others to use instead. Sounds a bit like a caching mechanism again! Regards, James Green Term e-mail: jmkgre@essex.ac.uk | Home e-mail: jg@cyberstorm.demon.co.uk Homepage: http://www.cyberstorm.demon.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 1997 12:03:19 UTC