- From: <MARIO_D@bbrandes.berlinet.de>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 16:46:22 +0100
- To: WWW-TALK@w3.org
_Betreff : Re: Improve the traffic condition on the Internet _Absender: snowhare@netimages.com _Arrival : 21-03-1996 01:17:06 _[w3.org!www-talk-request] (Benjamin Franz S@N) S@N> On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Gao Hong wrote: S@N> S@N> > S@N> > I have an idea about improving the traffic condition on the Internet. W [...] S@N> > I mean we define a compress standard using on the internet. [...] [...] S@N> S@N> The fundamental idea is sound - but the reality is that the vast majority S@N> traffic *is* already compressed. Additional attempts at compression are S@N> simply not going to provide much improvment in the current situation. S@N> S@N> At www.xmission.com (serving tens of thousands of web pages by a few S@N> thousand different people), yesterday's traffic top three byte count S@N> categories (from a total of files transfered of 640,628 S@N> and total bytes transfered of 6,083,382,508) were: S@N> S@N> Hits Bytes File type S@N> ====== ========== ================= S@N> 207994 2483328017 jpg graphic files S@N> 184952 1399457986 html files S@N> 181799 1248240540 gif graphic files Yes, and that's only a part of the whole internet byte-chaos. The only we might be able to do is to compress ALL html-pages. (As You know there are text-only.) But that would be a new standard. (html 4 pro? :-) ) S@N> [...] S@N> S@N> Neither the jpg nor gif files can be ... compressed [...] --------------------------^ SI HOMBRE I suggest that the gif files have to been compressed, too. GIF --> JPEG The quality doesn't decrease very much... but the quantity does. S@N> are already, so that pretty much leaves the html files. Assuming a 75% S@N> compression of the html files on the average (a not too unreasonable figur S@N> for English text - does anyone have average compression figures for the JI S@N> family of text encoding?), the *net* savings would be only around 20% of t S@N> total byte count. This is because html files only represent about 1/4 of t S@N> traffic right now. and: "step by step" and: all is bet... ...ter S@N> S@N> The fact is that page authors are in fact making *excellent* use of S@N> compression in general and files are being kept quite small individually. S@N> The average size of a jpg in the sample was only 11.9 Kbytes, the average S@N> size of gif files was 6.8 Kbytes, the average size of an html file was S@N> 7.5 Kbytes. S@N> S@N> Finally, at the rate of growth of the net today, a savings of 20% in S@N> total traffic would just be 'setting back the clock' by about two S@N> or three months. It is a stopgap, not a solution to the fundamental S@N> scaling problem of everyone accessing resources directly. S@N> S@N> A much more effective approach would be the widespread deployment of S@N> hierarchial proxy servers and large scale trans-continental mirroring of S@N> sites to keep most accesses relatively local. Not that it would help that S@N> much with the recent (non) performance of MCI and Sprint in the SF Bay Are S@N> I often can't reach places less than 6 hops and 10 miles away... That's right. CU MARiO ______________<>______________ | Mario_D@bbrandes.BERLINet.de | | society.de | pgp-able mail-transfer | germany.net | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~""~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Received on Thursday, 21 March 1996 14:24:37 UTC