- From: Nic Ferrier <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:37:52 +0100
- To: Mihai.Preda@inria.fr, www-server@w3.org, www-talk@w3.org
>>> Mihai Preda <Mihai.Preda@inria.fr> 22-Aug-00 1:05:14 PM >>> >But, if I want to get 10 pages from a server, wouldn't it >be more advantageous (for the server too) to get the 10pages >at once (with persistent c.) and afterwards leave it in peace for >300sec(30*10) rather than open a TCP con. and get a page >every 30sec, 10 times? Well... there is still the question of processor and disk i/o util but... >First, I'd like to know what is the consensus in this matter. I think persistent connections are all right for robots. Trouble is you can't gaurantee you're going to get one can you? >Second, I'd like to know what do you think about this proposition, > which is aimed to allow the use of persistent c. by robots: >So, we are againt server-overload, and we allocate 30sec/page. >But we allow to get a limitted number of pages (say, 5 or 10) together >through a persistent con., with the condition to leave the server rest >longer afterwards. If we get 5 pages at once, we won't ask anything >from the same server for the next 30*5 seconds. What do you think? I don't think that's necessary myself... if you get a persistent connection you should be able to get 5-10 pages and then drop for 30 seconds. Still... it may be worth doing... it would take a long time for rule changes to percolate through to the real net (as it were). Nic
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2000 08:32:25 UTC