On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Tony Wicks wrote:
Well, maybe it's just that Cacheflows suck ?
Which is probably quite true, hence the comments about cache devices that add additional "features" to allow overrides and cache sites 'harder' Squid is amoungst the ones that can get some quite substantial savings but at what cost ? I've seen admins force caching on obviously dynamic sites in order to acheive some sort of realistic bandwidth savings - howeve, this can cause all sorts of support calls and grumpy customers. there is no doubt that one can artificially create a bandwidth saving that is quite real but at what cost ? especially when the customer tends to pay a premium for international bandwidth already.. -- Steve.
-----Original Message----- From: David Fox [mailto:foxy(a)morenet.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 9 June 2004 1:12 p.m. To: Steve Cc: NZ Network Operators Group Subject: RE: [nznog] Google and MaxNet
I agree wholeheartedly with Steve comments below, the cost saving is negligible while the required resource to administer was high. I redeployed my cache to a new position in our network: it is working very well as a footrest under my desk.
I found removing the cache actually improved overall performance, my customers - and even managers - noticed the improvement ... some of them even rang to say Thanks (that makes a change!)
David
-----Original Message----- From: Steve [mailto:steve(a)focb.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 9 June 2004 12:33 PM To: Cameron Kerr Cc: NZ Network Operators Group Subject: Re: [nznog] Google and MaxNet
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Cameron Kerr wrote:
Is this a trick question? The answer, naturally, is money, more specifically, it is far cheaper (essentially free) to serve something from an ISPs local cache than to request it all over again. This way, the ISP `earns' (saves) money, plus it has the very real potential to be faster when hit from cache (though I doubt that is the primary motivation for using transparent proxying in an ISP environment.
Many times however, when you check the bandwidth in vs. the bandwidth out the saving is minimal if you are only doing light cacheing.
While it is possible to override "dont cache" headers and expiry times on web sites this will more than likely break dynamic content and requires a lot more work to maintain lists of dynamic pages that break when the cache headers are overridden hence driving up the costs such that the "savings" in bandwidth are artificial.
-- Steve.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog