- From: Martin Hamilton <martin@net.lut.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:07:57 +0100
- To: "John Hardy" <jh@lagado.com>
- Cc: www-talk@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii "John Hardy" writes: | Does it follow that most page accesses are uncacheable? Is this compensated | by static content such as images, MP3's etc Hi John - it seems to be the case there's a substantial enough volume of cacheable (but not necessarily static :-) content out there that (at least one level of) proxy caching is still useful. For instance, the first level (site) caches I help to run are shipping several million URLs/day between them, and have been achieving byte and request hit rates in the region of 45% to 55% of the requested URLs on a combined cache (pooled using cache digests) of just 100GB. They've been getting another ~15% hit rate from peerings with a second level "national" cache cluster that (by way of a comparison) has some 1.5TB of pooled disk and ships ~80m URLs/day and ~800GB/day peak. More at <URL:http://wwwcache.ja.net/events/JISC-2000/> in case anyone's interested... You might also want to check out the proceedings of the web caching workshops - best to start at <URL:http://www.terena.nl/conf/wcw/>, which has only just taken place and so has the freshest results :-) Cheers, Martin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 + martin iD8DBQE5Q8dtVw+hz3xBJfQRAv74AJwLEMTVp2Y0YcHuMLWcKIcom8DBcwCdHYOz pLzIk6Dj8SGvUaiust2zEXY= =UTP5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Sunday, 11 June 2000 13:08:10 UTC